NationStates Jolt Archive

The question I come up with is this: Does the codification of morals make the following of them any less moral? If you wrote down your morals, then proceeded to obey them, would you no longer be being moral? I see religion the same way, a set of written morals that is followed on one's own volition. Whether the authority for following those morals comes from your sense of righteousness, or the sense of a higher being, your morality within the act does not change.
- Veritas

A thought has occured to me, following one or two of the recent threads...

Religions tend to focus on codes of laws, sets of rules, that one must follow.

Religions tend to suggest these 'laws' originate at some higher point than mere humanity.

To be 'religious' then, it seems one must be obedient... one must 'obey' the morality that is ordained from some superior point.

A pet dog can be 'obedient'... and if I tell a dog to obey me, that doesn't make the dog more or less 'moral' in it's actions... just more or less obedient to MY morality.

So - if one is religious, one is not exercising any 'morality'... merely 'obeying' the moral instruction of another...

Discuss?


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=morality


"The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct. "

I don't know what obeying or not obeying anybody has to do with being moral.

Why couldn't somebody be obedient and moral at the same time? Where is it written that these two concepts in any way contradict eachother??

What is the superior path?

Do you behave morally because your "God" and his priests, having defined morality for you, have told you to?

Do you behave morally because it's rational, and your morals are defined by rational thought?

I behave in a way I consider moral because I've thought it through and have decided that moral behavior is pro-survival for the species. I define morality as that behavior which does the least harm and, conversely, the most good.

I define good as that which promotes survival and harm as that which undermines survival.

What is the superior path?

Do you behave morally because your "God" and his priests, having defined morality for you, have told you to?

Do you behave morally because it's rational, and your morals are defined by rational thought?

There is a genuine third option. I behave morally because I am a human being, and I value, just in respect of being human, the opinions of other humans. There is no rational thinking here. There is no logical reason why I should value the opinions of others, it is just a contingent fact about me that I do.

I behave in a way I consider moral because I've thought it through and have decided that moral behavior is pro-survival for the species. I define morality as that behavior which does the least harm and, conversely, the most good.

I define good as that which promotes survival and harm as that which undermines survival.

Thus you are morally justified in doing anything to survive. The concentratioin camp guard is moral this way.

There is a genuine third option. I behave morally because I am a human being, and I value, just in respect of being human, the opinions of other humans. There is no rational thinking here. There is no logical reason why I should value the opinions of others, it is just a contingent fact about me that I do.



Thus you are morally justified in doing anything to survive. The concentratioin camp guard is moral this way.


Not intended that way at all. The post was not about individual survival but group survival. Sometimes the individual is called upon to sacrifice him/herself for the survival of the group, this is moral. Sacrificing the group for yourself is immoral.

A group's survival depends on many things, taking care of children, for example; that which harms children is immoral, that which promotes the good of children is moral.

Genocide can then be called immoral, because it harms the human race as a whole (sidebar - genocide has frequently been practiced by several religions and justified as moral because "God told us to do it").

Not intended that way at all. The post was not about individual survival but group survival. Sometimes the individual is called upon to sacrifice him/herself for the survival of the group, this is moral. Sacrificing the group for yourself is immoral.
On what basis? This sounds like a belief statement. This is right and that is wrong and that is how it is.

A group's survival depends on many things, taking care of children, for example; that which harms children is immoral, that which promotes the good of children is moral.
Taking care of children can be seen as moral beause it is of benefit to the group, but when I see kind and loving parents I don't think "Oh look they are benefitting our group", no, I think "how nice", I wish all parents were like that". In other words I approve of their action at a basic emotional level. The problem with the cold rational - it is of benefit - approach is that taking care of the elderly, for example, which is seen as being morally good in nearly all societies is actually harmful to the group if you analyse it.

Genocide can then be called immoral, because it harms the human race as a whole (sidebar - genocide has frequently been practiced by several religions and justified as moral because "God told us to do it").

And still is being justified on religious grounds.

On what basis? This sounds like a belief statement. This is right and that is wrong and that is how it is.


Taking care of children can be seen as moral beause it is of benefit to the group, but when I see kind and loving parents I don't think "Oh look they are benefitting our group", no, I think "how nice", I wish all parents were like that". In other words I approve of their action at a basic emotional level. The problem with the cold rational - it is of benefit - approach is that taking care of the elderly, for example, which is seen as being morally good in nearly all societies is actually harmful to the group if you analyse it.



And still is being justified on religious grounds.


Actually, taking care of the elderly can be rationally justified by the fact that they have knowledge and information of value to the group.

I don't mean to come off as hyper-rational. Emotional survival is as important as physical survival. It is damaging to people emotionally to have to witness certain things, like the abuse of children or the elderly. And the emotional abuse of individuals is harmful to the group. I believe that moral behavior was, first and foremost, evolved as a group survival mechanism and only later was co-opted by religion.

If you accept religious teachings without examination you are not being moral. If you accept religious teachings upon careful examination, you are using your reason to analyze what you know of the world to decide on your morals. Either you are not being moral, or you are not using religion.

So your claim is that your parents CANNOT affect your morality, huh?

I love that you admit that morality comes from experience, then you redefine experience to not include religion and then act like you proved something. Ever heard of circular logic. Either experiences affect your morality or they don't. Religious experiences, including your interaction with other religious people, your explorations of your religion and the teachings of that religion are ALL part of your experience and all affect your morality.

Sans your circular argument, you have not foundation for your claims.

Of course, religious authority is just another source for moral guidance.

Actually, taking care of the elderly can be rationally justified by the fact that they have knowledge and information of value to the group.
OK, it can; if you choose to disregard the fact that we have developed writing as a means of transferring knowledge.

I don't mean to come off as hyper-rational. Emotional survival is as important as physical survival. It is damaging to people emotionally to have to witness certain things, like the abuse of children or the elderly. And the emotional abuse of individuals is harmful to the group. I believe that moral behavior was, first and foremost, evolved as a group survival mechanism and only later was co-opted by religion.

That your belief about morality is one that looks to provide a justification for its existence is evidence of a prediliction toward a rational explanation. What I am arguing here is that morality has no external basis. Neither in 'science' nor in 'religion'. We have moral codes and behaviour simply and purely because we value certain types of behaviour and as a result approve of or disapprove of actions and or people. This evaluation is non rational and is based on our 'gut reaction', our feelings, our unconscious responses.

If you examine what types of things we react positively towards, then it may be that these are things that are useful, but I severely doubt that this is always the case. There are things that are pleasant in and of themselves without having any functional benefit.

You're confused. Being moral has nothing to do with 'obeying' God. Even non-believers have morals when it suits them. The difference is that a Christian attempts to follow the moral examples set by Jesus; which often exceed secular moral viewpoints. Any shortcomings don't imply that we aren't obedient to God since we still believe in Jesus Christ. Besides, "There is none righteous, no, not one".

No, my friend, I am not 'confused'. Merely 'curious'.

Non-believers have morals "when it suits them"? What a mouthful THAT is... you immediately make the morality of the non-believer optional, something they can 'turn off' when it isn't convenient.

Next point, of course: "The difference is that a Christian attempts to follow the moral examples set by Jesus"... whereas, of course, a non-believer couldn't possibly?

I've actually been told by friends and acquanitances, that I'd actually make a pretty good Christian, if I could just get passed that pesky 'not believing in god or his little zombie-king' issue.

Indeed - living where I live... and seeing what I see... and being the kind of person I am, I often find myself acting in a MUCH more 'Christ-like' manner than many of the people around me.

If you ignore all the Paul bullshit, and the psycho-spiritual meanderings of John... it's actually a pretty good example to follow... be you Christian or no.

I think you miss the point if you believe I was attacking a 'failure to obey'... quite the opposite in fact.

The question I come up with is this: Does the codification of morals make the following of them any less moral? If you wrote down your morals, then proceeded to obey them, would you no longer be being moral? I see religion the same way, a set of written morals that is followed on one's own volition. Whether the authority for following those morals comes from your sense of righteousness, or the sense of a higher being, your morality within the act does not change.
- Veritas

In a way... writing down your own 'list' and then obeying it, WOULD have an effect on your 'morality'.... it may seem counterintuitive... but bear with it for a moment.

Even if I write my OWN rules, and I then follow that list... it implies I am no longer making those judgements. I am jumping to an automatic response. I am not 'weighing' the individual issue.

Thus - what I am doing, even THOUGH I wrote the list, is simply doing as I am told. I am not following any moral code, but the instructions of another. Although, of course, in THIS case, that 'other' is my own, earlier, self.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=morality


"The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct. "

I don't know what obeying or not obeying anybody has to do with being moral.

Why couldn't somebody be obedient and moral at the same time? Where is it written that these two concepts in any way contradict eachother??

Well, that's the whole issue, though...

If you don't 'use' your 'morality'... can you REALLY argue that your actions are 'moral'... or that you are BEING 'moral'?

If you are slavishly obedient, you may do the bidding of someone who is displaying 'morality'... but you become a tool, do you not?

Is a hammer 'moral' if a moral person uses it?

You speak of it as if it is some form of collective sentience instead of the disjointed hopes and fears of countless souls, both good and vile struggling to find Truth or Power or Faith or Control.

Well, if one looks at the 'church' as the entity sponsored by Constantine (and some argue he was nothing more than an observor... but he paid for the whole project, and he paid for the written product... so I'd imagine he had SOME sway), there was a DEFINITE attempt to create one 'vision' of an organised 'Christian' religion - and ALL of our mdoern sects owe SOME alleigance to that original process.

But, of course, the process DIDN'T stop there, and as sects have split off, many have carried out their OWN 'crusades' of religious purity. One only needs to look at the Southern Baptist movement of the USA, with it's constant attacks on ALL other forms of Christian thought for being 'heretical' and 'apostate'.

Is there some reason you're taking a belligerent stance with me?
I responded to GnI's post about being a second class citizen for not being a good Christian in the American Bible Belt. That can hardly be taken as referencing a particular incarnation of the Roman Catholic church.

I can see where you were referring to the RC church for a couple of posts, but that is a different tangent from where I engaged GnI in conversation.

No, it wasn't. You are mixing conversations.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10612675&postcount=231
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10613037&postcount=232

GnI and I were discussing the organized Church, not individuals. He specifically said so.

You speak of it as if it is some form of collective sentience instead of the disjointed hopes and fears of countless souls, both good and vile struggling to find Truth or Power or Faith or Control.

I was particularly replying to this response to post 232. And the reason I was being snarky was you appeared to being deliberately obtuse. Now I see it wasn't deliberate. You appear to have actually forgotten what we were talking about and what sparked the conversation. This post should clear that up.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=morality


"The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct. "

I don't know what obeying or not obeying anybody has to do with being moral.

Why couldn't somebody be obedient and moral at the same time? Where is it written that these two concepts in any way contradict eachother??

Notice it says BEING not ACTING. You can't be in accord with the standards of right and wrong, when you are only behaving a certain way to avoid punishment. Otherwise dogs are capable of morality even though they have no sense of right and wrong in the moral sense and only what helps them and hurts them.

Actually, taking care of the elderly can be rationally justified by the fact that they have knowledge and information of value to the group.
OK, it can; if you choose to disregard the fact that we have developed writing as a means of transferring knowledge.
But someone has to dictate what the old people say before we can have written knowledge to pass on.

In a way... writing down your own 'list' and then obeying it, WOULD have an effect on your 'morality'.... it may seem counterintuitive... but bear with it for a moment.

Even if I write my OWN rules, and I then follow that list... it implies I am no longer making those judgements. I am jumping to an automatic response. I am not 'weighing' the individual issue.

Thus - what I am doing, even THOUGH I wrote the list, is simply doing as I am told. I am not following any moral code, but the instructions of another. Although, of course, in THIS case, that 'other' is my own, earlier, self.

And honestly, I would argue in that case that the earlier self is the one that was being moral, not the current self that simply obeys codified rules like a slave.

But someone has to dictate what the old people say before we can have written knowledge to pass on.

The accumulated wisdom of the ages is the utility argument for supporting the aged and unproductive members of the society. This knowledge can be written down and the cost to the group of supporting a few books is obviously less than that of supporting the elderly.

No-one has to write down what the elderly say, as they can have written down what they discover in life, as and when they discover it. (How old were the great philosophers in general when they wrote their major works? In the majority of cases they were in their 20s and 30s. Only very few people have contributed much to human knowledge in the dotage.)

All I am suggesting is that utility to the survival of the group can not be the one and only reason behind moral values. The treatment of the elderly being a god example of where that position fails.

The accumulated wisdom of the ages is the utility argument for supporting the aged and unproductive members of the society. This knowledge can be written down and the cost to the group of supporting a few books is obviously less than that of supporting the elderly.

No-one has to write down what the elderly say, as they can have written down what they discover in life, as and when they discover it. (How old were the great philosophers in general when they wrote their major works? In the majority of cases they were in their 20s and 30s. Only very few people have contributed much to human knowledge in the dotage.)

All I am suggesting is that utility to the survival of the group can not be the one and only reason behind moral values. The treatment of the elderly being a god example of where that position fails.

Your definition of 'human knowledge' appears to be unfortunately limited to an extreme degree. I think if you started a thread on it, you'd find that a vast quantity of posters on this forum were passed human knowledge by people in their dotage. My grandfather changed my life when he would have been considered by many to be in the dotage. My grandmother continues to do so.

Your limited experiences are not the experiences of all of us.

More importantly, the elderly deserve respect because they have served our country, if only by paying taxes and being productive members of society, throughout their lives. The played their part in the history of this country and it earned them respect, care and comfort. And, if you do the same, you'll have earned that as well. They did it for their elderly and we do it for them.

Your argument is only remotely sound if we began the cycle. However, they took part in the cycle with the understanding that when it was their turn they would get the respect, care and comfort they earned.

Well, if one looks at the 'church' as the entity sponsored by Constantine (and some argue he was nothing more than an observor... but he paid for the whole project, and he paid for the written product... so I'd imagine he had SOME sway), there was a DEFINITE attempt to create one 'vision' of an organised 'Christian' religion - and ALL of our mdoern sects owe SOME alleigance to that original process.


Certainly.
But that 'entity' hasn't remained a co-hesive and contiguous whole.
It has started, stopped, split, been reborn, diverged, evolved, etc.

So when you reference it as having had 2 millenia of practice with a particular goal in mind, I can't take that as an accurate assement, but rather an interesting anthropomorphisation. This 'wheel' has been re-invented too many times to be practiced.


Now, if you want to talk about how long the Southern Baptists have practiced their own brand of it, we can fully agree.

Your definition of 'human knowledge' appears to be unfortunately limited to an extreme degree. I think if you started a thread on it, you'd find that a vast quantity of posters on this forum were passed human knowledge by people in their dotage. My grandfather changed my life when he would have been considered by many to be in the dotage. My grandmother continues to do so.
Slow down a moment Jocabia. I am not saying that the elderly should be done away with. All I am saying is that the utility argument for morality can not account for our attitudes and treatment of the elderly. What you personally, and others here including myself, learned from people in their dotage is not the question. The question is whether this is the most effective and utility laden way of transmitting this knowledge. To that question the answer is no. The group would be better off using other methods to transmit this knowledge. That does not mean that they should use other methods, as it disregards our internal human values that are essential to any moral position.

The rest of your post is an argument toward recognising these internal values, ones that I have explicitly recognized earlier. We are essentially arguing from the same point of view. Please go back and re-read what I have posted and try to see that I am arguing for respect and even veneration of our elders and am using this as an argument against Anti-Social Darwinism's position that morality depends on its functionality.

No, it wasn't. You are mixing conversations.

GnI and I were discussing the organized Church, not individuals. He specifically said so.


I was particularly replying to this response to post 232. And the reason I was being snarky was you appeared to being deliberately obtuse. Now I see it wasn't deliberate. You appear to have actually forgotten what we were talking about and what sparked the conversation. This post should clear that up.

I'm also not discussing individuals, I'm commenting on the 'church' that has made GnI feel excluded for not being a 'good christian'.

But seriously, you go ahead and carry on whatever conversation with GnI you were having, I'm really not trying to either prevent you from it or trying to confuse you. Taking another tangent with you to explain the tangental conversation I engaged GnI regarding is becoming much more effort than it is worth.

The accumulated wisdom of the ages is the utility argument for supporting the aged and unproductive members of the society. This knowledge can be written down and the cost to the group of supporting a few books is obviously less than that of supporting the elderly.

No-one has to write down what the elderly say, as they can have written down what they discover in life, as and when they discover it. (How old were the great philosophers in general when they wrote their major works? In the majority of cases they were in their 20s and 30s. Only very few people have contributed much to human knowledge in the dotage.)

All I am suggesting is that utility to the survival of the group can not be the one and only reason behind moral values. The treatment of the elderly being a god example of where that position fails.


Slow down a moment Jocabia. I am not saying that the elderly should be done away with. All I am saying is that the utility argument for morality can not account for our attitudes and treatment of the elderly. What you personally, and others here including myself, learned from people in their dotage is not the question. The question is whether this is the most effective and utility laden way of transmitting this knowledge. To that question the answer is no. The group would be better off using other methods to transmit this knowledge. That does not mean that they should use other methods, as it disregards our internal human values that are essential to any moral position.

The rest of your post is an argument toward recognising these internal values, ones that I have explicitly recognized earlier. We are essentially arguing from the same point of view. Please go back and re-read what I have posted and try to see that I am arguing for respect and even veneration of our elders and am using this as an argument against Anti-Social Darwinism's position that morality depends on its functionality.
The thing about wisdom is that it is not gained when events happen, but on reflection of past events (and the forces that lead to them). Writing down an event "as it happens" is history.

I do not see how you can get that out of a limited number of books. Why should we not learn from the elderly? Why should we not add to the store?

EDIT: Sorry, on second read this is a strawman I'm flailing at.

It's absolutely possible to be moral and religious.

So long as you're thinking for yourself, not being overly dogmatic, and not forcing your own beliefs on anyone else.

Religious people who see faith as a personal thing that's important in their own lives, and filter their dogma through common sense and personal principles, are very moral.

It's the Pat Robertson types who abuse their religion for their own benefit and hate people who don't go along with them who are in no way moral. But that's a minority of Christians.

I'm also not discussing individuals, I'm commenting on the 'church' that has made GnI feel excluded for not being a 'good christian'.

But we weren't discussing it at the time you made the comment I responded to. You made that comment before he made the comment. Are you a seer? If not, then this could not possibly but what you were responding to.

But seriously, you go ahead and carry on whatever conversation with GnI you were having, I'm really not trying to either prevent you from it or trying to confuse you. Taking another tangent with you to explain the tangental conversation I engaged GnI regarding is becoming much more effort than it is worth.
I saw the conversation. The point you made about it not being a determined entity was before he ever made the comment you claim you were replying to.

You may be intelligent, but I'm fairly certain you couldn't see the future of his conversation.

The thing about wisdom is that it is not gained when events happen, but on reflection of past events (and the forces that lead to them). Writing down an event "as it happens" is history.

I do not see how you can get that out of a limited number of books. Why should we not learn from the elderly? Why should we not add to the store?

I think it's also important to note that it seems like the way we view the events of our lives is quite different when we view death to be looming. Look at the behavior of many of the terminally ill. They often have some remarkable wisdoms. The elderly offer views on our world that is necessary to the spectrum of opinions and views. They are in many ways fundamentally different than what you or I have to offer because that have near a century put into perfecting the magnifying glass through which they examine the world.

I think it's also important to note that it seems like the way we view the events of our lives is quite different when we view death to be looming. Look at the behavior of many of the terminally ill. They often have some remarkable wisdoms. The elderly offer views on our world that is necessary to the spectrum of opinions and views. They are in many ways fundamentally different than what you or I have to offer because that have near a century put into perfecting the magnifying glass through which they examine the world.
Anne Frank comes to mind.

Books are an effective means of transmitting wisdom, but someone has to write them.

And honestly, I would argue in that case that the earlier self is the one that was being moral, not the current self that simply obeys codified rules like a slave.

Exactly.

'Later Me' follows instructions blindly. Thus, 'Later Me' is, basically, a pawn.

'Earlier Me' discerns a 'morality'. (Then, acts on it, and catalogues it for our 'later self' in this model).

Thus - 'Earlier Me' is a 'moral entity', while 'Later Me' is just an 'obedient entity'.

Certainly.
But that 'entity' hasn't remained a co-hesive and contiguous whole.
It has started, stopped, split, been reborn, diverged, evolved, etc.

So when you reference it as having had 2 millenia of practice with a particular goal in mind, I can't take that as an accurate assement, but rather an interesting anthropomorphisation. This 'wheel' has been re-invented too many times to be practiced.


Now, if you want to talk about how long the Southern Baptists have practiced their own brand of it, we can fully agree.

Specifically: The SOuthern Baptists are the perfect example, one could argue, of this 'suppression' action by organised religions...

LESS Specifically - do the Southern Baptists have 'claim' to that two thousand years of practise...?

Well, yes... in as much as, though there have been reforms in the THEOLOGY of the variant Christianities... though they have warred over doctrine and tradition... still, they have all followed FROM that common root.

None of the 'organised' Christian movements has 'undone' Nicaea... they have all, at the VERY least, followed the path set.

Most, have expanded that path, also.

Specifically: The SOuthern Baptists are the perfect example, one could argue, of this 'suppression' action by organised religions...

LESS Specifically - do the Southern Baptists have 'claim' to that two thousand years of practise...?

Well, yes... in as much as, though there have been reforms in the THEOLOGY of the variant Christianities... though they have warred over doctrine and tradition... still, they have all followed FROM that common root.

None of the 'organised' Christian movements has 'undone' Nicaea... they have all, at the VERY least, followed the path set.

Most, have expanded that path, also.

More importantly, when you actually treated it as a contiguous whole, when he objected to it, you were talking more generally, not about the direct effects you were feeling.

Exactly.

'Later Me' follows instructions blindly. Thus, 'Later Me' is, basically, a pawn.

'Earlier Me' discerns a 'morality'. (Then, acts on it, and catalogues it for our 'later self' in this model).

Thus - 'Earlier Me' is a 'moral entity', while 'Later Me' is just an 'obedient entity'.

I had to read this, go back and read the earlier post and then read this again. I love conversations like that. This is a wonderful thought excercise and shows the stability of our definition of morality.

I'd have to start by pointing out that an 'argument' can never 'prove' anything. If I have an argument that 'suggests' that there is a god (like the one in the Bible), but there is NO empirical evidence, then it is not 'logical' to believe in that god, at all.

At best, we should be skeptical about a newly opened avenue. At worst, we should discount immediately since there is no way to 'quantify' it.

It is sloppy logic (indeed, it is not actually 'logic', at all) to assume that just because I CAN'T 'prove' "random speculation one" wrong, it must be true.

First of all, I don't assume that because I can't prove the non-existence of God that God must exist. I think I have a pretty decent argument for why God exists. I have yet to find a countervailing argument for why that argument is wrong. I can't think of a way it is possible. Therefore, it is not just logical, but necessary that on the basis of my reasoning that I believe in God: if the premises are true, then I would be illogical not to accept the conclusion.

Secondly, you keep for some crazy reason relating this back to empirical evidence. You don't always need empirical evidence to prove facts about the world, GNI. For instance, it is necessarily true that all bachelors are unmarried, but I would have to be retarded to base my acceptance of the truth of this claim on the basis of my empirical findings about bachelors. It is necessarily true that 2+2=4, but I would have to be retarded to base my acceptance of this mathematical claim on the fact that every time I've seen two pairs, I've seen a total of four different objects. It is true that the earth goes around the sun, and I accept such information even on the basis of the fact that 1) I've never actually personally, physically investigated the alignment of the solar system, and 2) every day of my life I've had visible evidence that the sun in fact goes around the earth, yet I don't think I'm being illogical. It is true that unicorns don't exist, but I don't base my notion of truth on empirical fact; as you yourself note, the absence of evidence of existence or non-existence is not in itself proof of the opposite. I could keep going, but I hope this is sufficient to drill into you: you don't have to empirically verify something for it to be true.


But, if you believe in something BECAUSE of 'evidence'... you are not exhibiting ANY kind of 'faith'.

Unless, you also believe that looking at a sunrise is 'faith' in the sun.


Not quite the same kind of thing: I could be decieved by some kind of malign genie about the nature of the sunrise, so I could be mistaken. But supposing I had a concrete argument that assures me that my observation of the sun is definately in 100% accord with how the sun is, then I would say that I have faith in the existence of the sun. You are correct that this is not the conventional use of the term, but I specifically said that I think it is a better use of the term, because your definition presupposes illogical or alogical thinking when faith is involved, which makes no sense when you consider that the one thing religions constantly stress is the relationship between reason and divinity.


On the contrary - if you can accept the existence of ONE god, I can't see how you can logically deny the possibility of MORE THAN one god.

Similarly, if you are willing to accept Jehovah God as a concept, I can see no realistic logical way to refute 'Allah'.

What you have, is a wayto measure lines you've ALREADY drawn. It serves no purpose as a guideline to draw by.

No, I don't. What I have is a way to get a very clear, precise definition of God, as well as a way to test for whether no God, one God or a multiplicity of Gods is required to account for the world as it is. Once I have such a definition, I can test whether in each case the specific tenets of the faith correspond to my definition. The definition of Allah will be different than the definition of Jehovah because Allah commands different tenets of the faith than does Jehovah. If so, then I can say whether I believe in Allah, Jehovah, neither, both, or some third option.

The accumulated wisdom of the ages is the utility argument for supporting the aged and unproductive members of the society. This knowledge can be written down and the cost to the group of supporting a few books is obviously less than that of supporting the elderly.

No-one has to write down what the elderly say, as they can have written down what they discover in life, as and when they discover it. (How old were the great philosophers in general when they wrote their major works? In the majority of cases they were in their 20s and 30s. Only very few people have contributed much to human knowledge in the dotage.)

All I am suggesting is that utility to the survival of the group can not be the one and only reason behind moral values. The treatment of the elderly being a god example of where that position fails.

Depends on the thinker and the genre. As a rule, most philosophers don't really make an impact until they are about 50. Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates were all writing/teaching well into old age, as were the majority of the Stoics, Augustine was in his forties or fifties when he produced City of God, Aquinas was still working on the Summa when he died in his late fifties, Bacon was getting into middle age when he started becoming a philosophical force, etc.

This doesn't necessarily disprove your utility argument, but very few philosophers really make such an impact, even though there are quite a few distinguished names among them: David Hume, Rene Descartes, Freidrich Nietzsche, Saul Kripke, etc. Most take some time to really pin down their ideas and differentiate themselves from their predeccesors, which in itself might be an argument for old people: it takes time to make philosophers of men, and the more you value the elderly, the more philosophers you could have (or at least, avoid missing out on).

Secondly, you keep for some crazy reason relating this back to empirical evidence. You don't always need empirical evidence to prove facts about the world, GNI. For instance, it is necessarily true that all bachelors are unmarried, but I would have to be retarded to base my acceptance of the truth of this claim on the basis of my empirical findings about bachelors. It is necessarily true that 2+2=4, but I would have to be retarded to base my acceptance of this mathematical claim on the fact that every time I've seen two pairs, I've seen a total of four different objects. It is true that the earth goes around the sun, and I accept such information even on the basis of the fact that 1) I've never actually personally, physically investigated the alignment of the solar system, and 2) every day of my life I've had visible evidence that the sun in fact goes around the earth, yet I don't think I'm being illogical. It is true that unicorns don't exist, but I don't base my notion of truth on empirical fact; as you yourself note, the absence of evidence of existence or non-existence is not in itself proof of the opposite. I could keep going, but I hope this is sufficient to drill into you: you don't have to empirically verify something for it to be true.

Truism is not the same as facts. You listed definitions we created. They are necessarily true, truisms. They are not the same as derived facts about the world we live in like you are referencing. Your argument is fundamentally flawed.

You accept that the earth goes around the sun on faith in the individuals who have studied it emperically. However, that version of faith is not the same as the version of faith that is required for things that you cannot personally explore if you so desired. The latter version is the version we refer to when talking about religious faith and you know it. Equivocation is a logical fallacy.

And your unicorn argument is simply silly. If you accept that you have no evidence of unicorns so you have no reason to believe in them, that's a scientific excercise, a product of reason and logic. If you believe they don't exist because of this lack of evidence, that's an act of faith.

Not quite the same kind of thing: I could be decieved by some kind of malign genie about the nature of the sunrise, so I could be mistaken. But supposing I had a concrete argument that assures me that my observation of the sun is definately in 100% accord with how the sun is, then I would say that I have faith in the existence of the sun. You are correct that this is not the conventional use of the term, but I specifically said that I think it is a better use of the term, because your definition presupposes illogical or alogical thinking when faith is involved, which makes no sense when you consider that the one thing religions constantly stress is the relationship between reason and divinity.

He didn't insinuate a lack of reason, only a lack of emperical that defines faith. You noted this and then pretended he said something else. Bad form.

No, I don't. What I have is a way to get a very clear, precise definition of God, as well as a way to test for whether no God, one God or a multiplicity of Gods is required to account for the world as it is. Once I have such a definition, I can test whether in each case the specific tenets of the faith correspond to my definition. The definition of Allah will be different than the definition of Jehovah because Allah commands different tenets of the faith than does Jehovah. If so, then I can say whether I believe in Allah, Jehovah, neither, both, or some third option.

That's ridiculous. I can make no gods/deity, one god/deity or 1000 gods/deities responsible for our existence simply by defining them differently. It's a thought excercise that's completely reliant on evidence in your own head. As he said, you draw the lines and then compare your definitions to your definitions. You claim you don't do that and then write a paragraph of explanation on how you do EXACTLY what he said you do.

I had to read this, go back and read the earlier post and then read this again. I love conversations like that. This is a wonderful thought excercise and shows the stability of our definition of morality.

:)

See - that's exactly the kind of thing I wanted from the thread.

Pardon my French... but, too often, the 'religion' and/or 'morality' debate turns into a pissing contest.

I'm not interested in 'My God is bigger than your God'... I'm interested in faith versus organised religion versus morality. And, I've had a few really good openings made in my head thus far, in this thread... so I consider it a success.

First of all, I don't assume that because I can't prove the non-existence of God that God must exist. I think I have a pretty decent argument for why God exists. I have yet to find a countervailing argument for why that argument is wrong. I can't think of a way it is possible. Therefore, it is not just logical, but necessary that on the basis of my reasoning that I believe in God: if the premises are true, then I would be illogical not to accept the conclusion.


Let's see the premise again... : "Moses Maimonides defined true faith is being able to find no logical reason to disbelieve something, a definition I happne to agree with".

So - if you cannot absolutely prove the non-existence of God, your 'faith' in 'god' must be based on the lack of contrary evidence... no?

You say you have a pretty good argument for why God exists. Well, that is your reason... it has no INTRINSIC value once it gets outside your head.

You may look at a sunrise and say "wow, that MUST require a God"... I might look at the same sunrise and say "wow, refraction is cool".

Thus, your 'evidence' is ONLY 'evidence' FOR 'god' if you accept it as such.

You can't work out a way it could be disproved... but that doesn't make it RIGHT... it just means YOU cannot or will not accept evidences against it, perhaps - which means, obviously, that the conclusion you have ALREADY reached will not fail you.


Secondly, you keep for some crazy reason relating this back to empirical evidence. You don't always need empirical evidence to prove facts about the world, GNI. For instance, it is necessarily true that all bachelors are unmarried, but I would have to be retarded to base my acceptance of the truth of this claim on the basis of my empirical findings about bachelors. It is necessarily true that 2+2=4, but I would have to be retarded to base my acceptance of this mathematical claim on the fact that every time I've seen two pairs, I've seen a total of four different objects. It is true that the earth goes around the sun, and I accept such information even on the basis of the fact that 1) I've never actually personally, physically investigated the alignment of the solar system, and 2) every day of my life I've had visible evidence that the sun in fact goes around the earth, yet I don't think I'm being illogical. It is true that unicorns don't exist, but I don't base my notion of truth on empirical fact; as you yourself note, the absence of evidence of existence or non-existence is not in itself proof of the opposite. I could keep going, but I hope this is sufficient to drill into you: you don't have to empirically verify something for it to be true.



Not quite the same kind of thing: I could be decieved by some kind of malign genie about the nature of the sunrise, so I could be mistaken. But supposing I had a concrete argument that assures me that my observation of the sun is definately in 100% accord with how the sun is, then I would say that I have faith in the existence of the sun. You are correct that this is not the conventional use of the term, but I specifically said that I think it is a better use of the term, because your definition presupposes illogical or alogical thinking when faith is involved, which makes no sense when you consider that the one thing religions constantly stress is the relationship between reason and divinity.


You are playing with definitions.

If a bachelor is DEFINED as an unmarried man, then, logically, bachelors will ALL be unmarried men.. and this we CAN check empirically, since bachelorhood is a measurable quantity.

On the other hand, there is no such handy definition, with measurable quantities, for 'god'.

By the way - I 'd REALLY like to see you PROVE that there are no unicorns.

Seriously.


No, I don't. What I have is a way to get a very clear, precise definition of God, as well as a way to test for whether no God, one God or a multiplicity of Gods is required to account for the world as it is. Once I have such a definition, I can test whether in each case the specific tenets of the faith correspond to my definition. The definition of Allah will be different than the definition of Jehovah because Allah commands different tenets of the faith than does Jehovah. If so, then I can say whether I believe in Allah, Jehovah, neither, both, or some third option.

Again - you play with definitions... and now, apparently, god is dependent upon YOUR approval?

There IS no logical or empirical way to get "a very clear, precise definition of God"... so the rest of your argument holds as much water as a sieve, I'm afraid.

And - yes, I AM back on 'empirical' evidence... because we MUST be, if we are going to compare the 'validity' of Jehovah-God versus Allah, for example.

Otherwise, it's just what I was trying to avoid... a pissing contest: "My God is better than yours"....

Truism is not the same as facts. You listed definitions we created. They are necessarily true, truisms. They are not the same as derived facts about the world we live in like you are referencing. Your argument is fundamentally flawed.

No, only the first is a "truism" in any sense of the term, because unmarried male is part of the definition of bachelor. Moreover, it is indisputable that it is true that all bachelors are unmarried males, and equally indisputable that such truth is derived from other reasons than empirical fact. If so, then GNI's standard benchmark for analysis is incorrect, because truth can be derived in other ways.

The second example, however, is not necessarily definitional; if I point to four objects and ask you to define how many they are, you aren't going to say "two pairs". It's an added inference about the number four that it can always be divided into two pairs that you learn and find out about the world, but you don't do it strictly through observation. To put it in a little more difficult but more clear context, if I asked you to define the term "triangle", you aren't going to say "an object with three interior angles summing to 180 degrees". You are likely simply going to say "a three-sided object whose sides converge". Now, why would you answer the second and not the first? Well, it's because you had to learn that the interior angles of a triangle always sum to 180 degrees; it isn't readily apparent from looking at a triangle that this is true. But you don't learn about it by observing every triangle and calculating whether it has the correct interior angles, but instead you learn it by the process of knowing principles of mathematics. In other words, you learned something in a non-empirical way about triangles, the same way you learned about the relationship between two and four.


You accept that the earth goes around the sun on faith in the individuals who have studied it emperically. However, that version of faith is not the same as the version of faith that is required for things that you cannot personally explore if you so desired. The latter version is the version we refer to when talking about religious faith and you know it. Equivocation is a logical fallacy.

True and false; the point I was making was not so much about the definition of knowledge so much as the common standard of acceptance. In that sense, I'm not making the fallacy of equivocation because my point was to make clear that we are oftentimes willing to say we "know" something even if we haven't empirically verified it, and in the case of the sun, in spite of our direct sensory input, which would seem to be the most common method of empircal data-gathering. If so, then I'm merely pointing out an inconsistency in his reasoning, because I'm suggesting that he has varying degrees of willingness to accept something as "true".


And your unicorn argument is simply silly. If you accept that you have no evidence of unicorns so you have no reason to believe in them, that's a scientific excercise, a product of reason and logic. If you believe they don't exist because of this lack of evidence, that's an act of faith.


If it is, then it only highlights the silliness of the original argument I was responding too. He was presupposing that I believe in God for the simple reason of absence of disproof. By that reasoning, I should believe in unicorns too, but I don't.


He didn't insinuate a lack of reason, only a lack of emperical that defines faith. You noted this and then pretended he said something else. Bad form.


That's not what I did at all. I noted that he and I have a different definition of what constitutes faith. I then said that my definition was superior and why. I hardly see how it's bad form in a debate about evolution, for instance, to say why one definition of evolution (one that say, excludes the Big Bang theory) is superior to another (one that does). If so, then I hardly see why the same line of reasoning is bad form here, Jocabia.

If I'm not making myself clear or if I'm stepping over some bounds for debate, please correct me. But I don't think I'm being unclear, and a debate about definitions ought not prima facie be called "bad form."


That's ridiculous. I can make no gods/deity, one god/deity or 1000 gods/deities responsible for our existence simply by defining them differently. It's a thought excercise that's completely reliant on evidence in your own head. As he said, you draw the lines and then compare your definitions to your definitions. You claim you don't do that and then write a paragraph of explanation on how you do EXACTLY what he said you do.

I'm not basing it on definitions; I'm basing it on Aristotelian reasoned facts. In the same way you can claim knowledge of cats by empirically noting 1) that they are stealthy, and 2) have retractable claws, and then concluding that they are stealthy because they have retractable claws, it is also possible to reason that "Supposing God exists, proposition x would be true" on the basis of a religion's own precepts or of reasoned conclusions about how God must be, and then reasoning on the basis of the existence/nonexistence of proposition x in the world whether God exists. Different religions have different proposition x's. Therefore, there are testable measures of determining which God we accept.

I'm not seeing why this is so hard.


See - that's exactly the kind of thing I wanted from the thread.

Pardon my French... but, too often, the 'religion' and/or 'morality' debate turns into a pissing contest.

I'm not interested in 'My God is bigger than your God'... I'm interested in faith versus organised religion versus morality. And, I've had a few really good openings made in my head thus far, in this thread... so I consider it a success.

Ironically, me too. I'm still just trying to get everyone to agree that my understanding of faith is possible. Once we get that hashed out, then I can get to the next step.

:)

See - that's exactly the kind of thing I wanted from the thread.

Pardon my French... but, too often, the 'religion' and/or 'morality' debate turns into a pissing contest.

I'm not interested in 'My God is bigger than your God'... I'm interested in faith versus organised religion versus morality. And, I've had a few really good openings made in my head thus far, in this thread... so I consider it a success.

I've been very impressed with many of the posts here. I do find the the circular argumenst, equivocations and word games by some of our more intelligent posters disappointing however. They seem to be more of an effort to simply look good than actually explore the topic.

More importantly, when you actually treated it as a contiguous whole, when he objected to it, you were talking more generally, not about the direct effects you were feeling.


Yes, be we were talking about specifically the Catholic Church centered in Rome. We were talking about a particular incarnation of the Christian Church, not all Christians nor all Christian Churches. That's the point. Are you arguing that Church didn't exist or do you not have a point?

Tell you what, when you figure out whether you were talking about the Church as a 'contiguous whole' or whether you were talking about 'a particular incarnation of the Christian church' 'specifically, the Catholic Church centered in Rome' I'll actually entertain your questions and explain my mystical seer-like ability to follow a conversation.

Exactly.

'Later Me' follows instructions blindly. Thus, 'Later Me' is, basically, a pawn.

'Earlier Me' discerns a 'morality'. (Then, acts on it, and catalogues it for our 'later self' in this model).

Thus - 'Earlier Me' is a 'moral entity', while 'Later Me' is just an 'obedient entity'.

Hmm, interesting but no.

'Later Me' may not need to assess the situation the way 'Earlier Me' did, but 'Later Me' still has the same decision to make regarding the morality in question.

Because I am not a glutton today, does not resolve the issue forever more.

Because I refused to fall prey to my lustful desires yesterday is no assurance I will be as moral tomorrow.

A thought has occured to me, following one or two of the recent threads...

Religions tend to focus on codes of laws, sets of rules, that one must follow.

Religions tend to suggest these 'laws' originate at some higher point than mere humanity.

To be 'religious' then, it seems one must be obedient... one must 'obey' the morality that is ordained from some superior point.

A pet dog can be 'obedient'... and if I tell a dog to obey me, that doesn't make the dog more or less 'moral' in it's actions... just more or less obedient to MY morality.

So - if one is religious, one is not exercising any 'morality'... merely 'obeying' the moral instruction of another...

Discuss?I could just go with the whole free will argument that we choose to obey but that's rather mundane. Instead I'll dumb it up a few clicks. From a Sociological standpoint morals are the result of a set of Values instilled in a person from a number of sources. Each person has his or her own set of Values, and thus his or her own set of morals as well. While a religion may be instrumental in shaping these values and morals, they do not, in themselves, create them. As such, A person can be both moral and religious.

Hmm, interesting but no.

'Later Me' may not need to assess the situation the way 'Earlier Me' did, but 'Later Me' still has the same decision to make regarding the morality in question.

Because I am not a glutton today, does not resolve the issue forever more.

Because I refused to fall prey to my lustful desires yesterday is no assurance I will be as moral tomorrow.

Ah, but that is EXACTLY the point, no?

If you are 'moral' now... and you write it down, and you obey that missive tomorrow... you are obeying the actions of a moral entity... but you are not then ACTING as a moral entity.

To me - at least - it seems that there must be a 'moral discernment', and a decision to act in a moral fashion. Otherwise, it is no more morality than repitition is conversation.

Specifically: The SOuthern Baptists are the perfect example, one could argue, of this 'suppression' action by organised religions...

LESS Specifically - do the Southern Baptists have 'claim' to that two thousand years of practise...?

Well, yes... in as much as, though there have been reforms in the THEOLOGY of the variant Christianities... though they have warred over doctrine and tradition... still, they have all followed FROM that common root.

None of the 'organised' Christian movements has 'undone' Nicaea... they have all, at the VERY least, followed the path set.

Most, have expanded that path, also.

I'm not certain Southern Baptists would be the perfect example, I imagine there are better, but then, I don't live with Southern Baptists and maybe I lack the direct experience to understand what you would see.

Regardless, I wouldn't argue the point, they certainly don't leave room other view points in their world view.

As for the 2,000 years of 'practise', I do not believe you can grant them that, so far as the issue of Organised Religion deliberately stamping out personal religion goes.
The Southern Baptists would one of many organised religions that have been on the same path you describe and have stamped out various things with varying degrees of success.

I believe it is an important distinction to make, because if the 'Church' is guilty of that deliberate act, then I personally would want nothing to do with it, but if certain organizations that are commonly labelled or seen as being a portion of the 'Church' have then I can accept that as I have no expectation that my fellow man nor his institutions will be perfect, or even good, regardless of the label they apply.

I could just go with the whole free will argument that we choose to obey but that's rather mundane. Instead I'll dumb it up a few clicks. From a Sociological standpoint morals are the result of a set of Values instilled in a person from a number of sources. Each person has his or her own set of Values, and thus his or her own set of morals as well. While a religion may be instrumental in shaping these values and morals, they do not, in themselves, create them. As such, A person can be both moral and religious.

Sorry, friend... but in your attempt to 'dumb it up' for me, you seem to have missed the whole point.

Yes - morals are a cumulative thing. Yes - we acquire our guidelines from a number of sources.

But, what I am arguing is that there is a 'morality' PROCESS, if you will - whereby we 'discern' and then 'act'... and that THAT is what makes it a 'moral action', makes ME a 'moral entity'.

The argument then follows... if that process is circumvented - as through rote, or NOT following the 'discern-act' pattern - then, can it not be argued, we are NOT 'being' moral?

Sorry, friend... but in your attempt to 'dumb it up' for me, you seem to have missed the whole point.

Yes - morals are a cumulative thing. Yes - we acquire our guidelines from a number of sources.

But, what I am arguing is that there is a 'morality' PROCESS, if you will - whereby we 'discern' and then 'act'... and that THAT is what makes it a 'moral action', makes ME a 'moral entity'.

The argument then follows... if that process is circumvented - as through rote, or NOT following the 'discern-act' pattern - then, can it not be argued, we are NOT 'being' moral?
Then it moves to psychology instead of sociology, in the fact that, we automatically discern stimuli, regardless of our concious awareness of discerning the stimulus... Are you aware that light passes through your cornea, then your pupil, then transposes itself onto the rods and cones in your retina in a reverse image that the brain then flips, every single time it happens? It's more or less the same concept. We don't have to be aware that we are discerning information to discern it.

I'm not certain Southern Baptists would be the perfect example, I imagine there are better, but then, I don't live with Southern Baptists and maybe I lack the direct experience to understand what you would see.

Regardless, I wouldn't argue the point, they certainly don't leave room other view points in their world view.

As for the 2,000 years of 'practise', I do not believe you can grant them that, so far as the issue of Organised Religion deliberately stamping out personal religion goes.
The Southern Baptists would one of many organised religions that have been on the same path you describe and have stamped out various things with varying degrees of success.

I believe it is an important distinction to make, because if the 'Church' is guilty of that deliberate act, then I personally would want nothing to do with it, but if certain organizations that are commonly labelled or seen as being a portion of the 'Church' have then I can accept that as I have no expectation that my fellow man nor his institutions will be perfect, or even good, regardless of the label they apply.

That's exactly it, though... I argue that it is almost intrinsic in [b]organised[/i] religion, to destroy the infidel.

Indeed, it seems only those parts of the movement that identify themselves as OUTSIDE of the conventional heirarchy of organised religion (like Christian Wiccans, or Gnostic Christians)... or the individualists... that seem happy to practise a faith that is not destructive.

Tell you what, when you figure out whether you were talking about the Church as a 'contiguous whole' or whether you were talking about 'a particular incarnation of the Christian church' 'specifically, the Catholic Church centered in Rome' I'll actually entertain your questions and explain my mystical seer-like ability to follow a conversation.

I think I made my answer clear. So did he. But, hey, I know, why don't you pretend like it's my fault that you came up with some BS about how you were talking about a future comment when you originally started arguing. Or how about this? You simply admit that his comments fairly clearly referenced the actual organized Church that has existed for 2000 years and not a bunch of individuals. Does this form of disingenuous banter work for you elsewhere, because it seems to be making you look fairly silly here?

Then it moves to psychology instead of sociology, in the fact that, we automatically discern stimuli, regardless of our concious awareness of discerning the stimulus... Are you aware that light passes through your cornea, then your pupil, then transposes itself onto the rods and cones in your retina in a reverse image that the brain then flips, every single time it happens? It's more or less the same concept. We don't have to be aware that we are discerning information to discern it.

Good point, yes. (Oh, and yes - we allowed for 'flipped' visual stimuli even way back when I studied biology).

But - there are levels of 'discernment', are there not?

I think you are heading for a scientific reading of the word, and I'm heading for something 'spiritual'.

If I want it in more scientific terms, I'm going to have to refer to something along the lines of a 'discernment/action arc'.

In the incident (pun intended) of your 'light' hitting the retina... there is a certain amount of time between the red light hitting my eye, and my brain putting my foot on the brake. This is the 'discernment/action arc' of which I speak... I am conditioned to 'stop at red-lights'... I'm not doing it as a moral action, or even as a decision at all.

And, that is my argument - if you have built-in code, when you encounter a 'moral' stimulus, you automatically stop at the red light. You circumvent the moral 'discernment/action arc' with a conditioned reflex.

I don't know.... this particular 'brand' of 'organisation' has nearly two millenia of practise, and it has certainly been fairly 'deliberate' at times.
You speak of it as if it is some form of collective sentience instead of the disjointed hopes and fears of countless souls, both good and vile struggling to find Truth or Power or Faith or Control.

Here is the statement that we've been talking about the whole time.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10614427&postcount=236

It was a comment completely separate in purpose and meaning from the other comments. Some of those comments were about specific Christians or about GnI's experiences in the south, but your response was to a comment clearly discussing the organized Christian Church that has been around for 2000 years and it's deliberate behavior. In the comment you replied to he and I were directly referencing behavior towards those not part of the organized Church over the last 2 millenia, not specifically. You basically ignored context which is a really BAD thing to do in a debate if you're interested in being taken seriously.

Yes, so much so that it sought to exterminate other sects and turned being outside of the church (excommunicated) into a stigma and a recipe for financial and cultural doom.

Here is my reply to him, so I appear to have understood. It appears the communication problem was entirely on your end.

Ah, but that is EXACTLY the point, no?

If you are 'moral' now... and you write it down, and you obey that missive tomorrow... you are obeying the actions of a moral entity... but you are not then ACTING as a moral entity.

To me - at least - it seems that there must be a 'moral discernment', and a decision to act in a moral fashion. Otherwise, it is no more morality than repitition is conversation.

You're going to need to break down that 'you obey that missive tomorrow' for me to agree.

Writing it down doesn't oblige me to follow it tomorrow, it simply records 'Earlier Me's' thoughts on the matter and 'Earlier Me's' proposed direction for 'Later Me' to follow.

'Later Me' must still make a choice and I believe it is the same moral choice that 'Earlier Me' made.
At a minimum though, you must agree that 'Later Me' is still making the choice to obey a moral missive. That itself must be a moral choice. Perhaps you see it as a less significant moral choice though?

Good point, yes. (Oh, and yes - we allowed for 'flipped' visual stimuli even way back when I studied biology).

But - there are levels of 'discernment', are there not?

I think you are heading for a scientific reading of the word, and I'm heading for something 'spiritual'.

If I want it in more scientific terms, I'm going to have to refer to something along the lines of a 'discernment/action arc'.

In the incident (pun intended) of your 'light' hitting the retina... there is a certain amount of time between the red light hitting my eye, and my brain putting my foot on the brake. This is the 'discernment/action arc' of which I speak... I am conditioned to 'stop at red-lights'... I'm not doing it as a moral action, or even as a decision at all.

And, that is my argument - if you have built-in code, when you encounter a 'moral' stimulus, you automatically stop at the red light. You circumvent the moral 'discernment/action arc' with a conditioned reflex.But the thing is, you still are deciding to stop at the red light, you could have just as easily ran through it, and the fact that there is the time delay relates more to the refractory period of the nerves in our body.

Here is the statement that we've been talking about the whole time.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10614427&postcount=236

It was a comment completely separate in purpose and meaning from the other comments. Some of those comments were about specific Christians or about GnI's experiences in the south, but your response was to a comment clearly discussing the organized Christian Church that has been around for 2000 years and it's deliberate behavior. In the comment you replied to he and I were directly referencing behavior towards those not part of the organized Church over the last 2 millenia, not specifically. You basically ignored context which is a really BAD thing to do in a debate if you're interested in being taken seriously.



Here is my reply to him, so I appear to have understood. It appears the communication problem was entirely on your end.

TG

You're going to need to break down that 'you obey that missive tomorrow' for me to agree.

Writing it down doesn't oblige me to follow it tomorrow, it simply records 'Earlier Me's' thoughts on the matter and 'Earlier Me's' proposed direction for 'Later Me' to follow.

'Later Me' must still make a choice and I believe it is the same moral choice that 'Earlier Me' made.
At a minimum though, you must agree that 'Later Me' is still making the choice to obey a moral missive. That itself must be a moral choice. Perhaps you see it as a less significant moral choice though?

It depends... did 'Earlier Me' just write the note for kicks?

If the note is the BASIS of actions for 'Later Me', then 'Later Me' is (I argue) absolved of the responsibility of 'morality'. 'Later Me' doesn't HAVE TO consider his (her.... my?) actions... because the 'correct response' is already laid out.

All you have to do, is put Tab A in Slot B. Batteries Not Included. No Morality Required.

It depends... did 'Earlier Me' just write the note for kicks?

If the note is the BASIS of actions for 'Later Me', then 'Later Me' is (I argue) absolved of the responsibility of 'morality'. 'Later Me' doesn't HAVE TO consider his (her.... my?) actions... because the 'correct response' is already laid out.

All you have to do, is put Tab A in Slot B. Batteries Not Included. No Morality Required.
Every single (wilful) act is a unique event that requires a unique decision to enact it.

TG

Tg'ed back. And for the record, from my side, I don't think that phenomena is recent.

Every single (wilful) act is a unique event that requires a unique decision to enact it.

It depends again on why you follow the missive. If you follow it not because in the individual instance it is right or because of some consideration, but simply in a blind effort to be consistent with what you committed to, then it's not a moral action.

I think I made my answer clear. So did he. But, hey, I know, why don't you pretend like it's my fault that you came up with some BS about how you were talking about a future comment when you originally started arguing. Or how about this? You simply admit that his comments fairly clearly referenced the actual organized Church that has existed for 2000 years and not a bunch of individuals.


Sure, how about I do just that.

Yes, he fairly clearly referenced the organized Church that has existed for 2000 years. He did NOT refer to it in any way as a bunch of individuals.

Happy now?

Proceeding FORWARD from there, *I* made the comment that the 2000 year old Church that you rightly indicate he referred to is in fact not a single Organised entity (which is where you're drawing the "bunch of individuals" statement from). If that point is being contested, we can travel that path.
Accepting that it is not an actual singular Organised entity, I proceeded to make the point that it therefore could not have made a deliberate attempt, nor could it have "practised" since the multiple entities that comprise the Church that has existed for 2000 years would not necessarily been learning "stamping out" techniques from each other.
GnI proceeded to describe their common roots and common path, which I do accept, but still don't believe makes for a singular entity with a deliberate purpose learning to improve this technique.


Does this form of disingenuous banter work for you elsewhere, because it seems to be making you look fairly silly here?

You tell me darling, you're leading this tango.
You began with a snarky attitude and questioned whether I had a point, then proceeded to call me obtuse.

If I had to guess, it would be that you're still somehow bothered by our disagreement in the Dutch thread, because really, we aren't even disagreeing about anything in this thread, other than whether I'm obtuse or not.

Depends on the thinker and the genre. As a rule, most philosophers don't really make an impact until they are about 50. Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates were all writing/teaching well into old age, as were the majority of the Stoics, Augustine was in his forties or fifties when he produced City of God, Aquinas was still working on the Summa when he died in his late fifties, Bacon was getting into middle age when he started becoming a philosophical force, etc.
The ancients were respected as wise old men, however in ancient Greece you were old if you got to live to be 40. Aristotle was an exceptional case, but Socrates did not live into his old age (he was condemned to death remember by the Athenians) and never wrote a single word. Aquinas worked his whole life on the Summa in one way or another, but he also produced texts such as his commentary on the Nichomachean Ethics when he was much younger and which contain nearly all of the ideas that he tried to pull together in the Summa.

This doesn't necessarily disprove your utility argument, but very few philosophers really make such an impact, even though there are quite a few distinguished names among them: David Hume, Rene Descartes, Freidrich Nietzsche, Saul Kripke, etc.
Can people here not read? My argument is against utility! It is NOT a utility argument. I was opposing the view put forward by Anti-Social Darwinism.
A few major thinkers missed off your list: Wittgenstein, Spinoza, Mill, Berkely, Smith, and Locke to name just some amongst philosophers. However I did not intend this to be exclusively philosophers. We should also include people like Calvin, Freud, Jung, Einstein, Bohr, Feynman, Mendel, Gödel, Goethe, Shakespeare, Van Neuman etc, etc.

Most take some time to really pin down their ideas and differentiate themselves from their predeccesors, which in itself might be an argument for old people: it takes time to make philosophers of men, and the more you value the elderly, the more philosophers you could have (or at least, avoid missing out on).

It takes time to make philosophical academics of men who have knowledge of the thought systems of others, but it takes nothing more than genuine curiosity and a willingness to really think for yourself to make philosophers.

Note that I was not disparaging the wisdom of the older members of society, I was disparaging the notion that we support them because it is useful for us to do so.

GnI proceeded to describe their common roots and common path, which I do accept, but still don't believe makes for a singular entity with a deliberate purpose learning to improve this technique.


More like... the disparate children of a singular entity... following in daddy's footsteps.

And, they might all be oppressing different groups... sometimes even each other... but the principle seems to remain consistent.

Sure, how about I do just that.

Yes, he fairly clearly referenced the organized Church that has existed for 2000 years. He did NOT refer to it in any way as a bunch of individuals.

Happy now?

Proceeding FORWARD from there, *I* made the comment that the 2000 year old Church that you rightly indicate he referred to is in fact not a single Organised entity (which is where you're drawing the "bunch of individuals" statement from). If that point is being contested, we can travel that path.
Accepting that it is not an actual singular Organised entity, I proceeded to make the point that it therefore could not have made a deliberate attempt, nor could it have "practised" since the multiple entities that comprise the Church that has existed for 2000 years would not necessarily been learning "stamping out" techniques from each other.
GnI proceeded to describe their common roots and common path, which I do accept, but still don't believe makes for a singular entity with a deliberate purpose learning to improve this technique.

I'm certain that your reference to disjointed souls was NOT a reference to individuals. Uh-huh. Nothing wacky about that assertion. What kind of an idiot would read disjointed souls to mean individuals? How silly of me.

The actions of the Church were deliberate and active and can be constantly referenced. Yes, the players changed and sometime not ever player was on the same page, but it is possible to make a generalized statement. Could I not make the argument that for several hundred years Western Europe sought to colonize the world? Of course I could. They did. It wasn't always the same leaders and those leaders didn't always agree, but like the leaders of the major Chritians Churches, until recently perhaps, they have been headed in the same direction and coming from the same place.

I don't know.... this particular 'brand' of 'organisation' has nearly two millenia of practise, and it has certainly been fairly 'deliberate' at times.

Notice, he said it does appear to be fairly deliberate (deliberate in quotes) "at times". I think he made his point ABUNDANTLY clear unless one was either associating it with other unrelated points inadvertantly or being deliberately obtuse. I thought you were doing the latter, but it appears you were doing the former. Again, I'm sorry for the false assumption.

You tell me darling, you're leading this tango.
You began with a snarky attitude and questioned whether I had a point, then proceeded to call me obtuse.

No, actually, I didn't. I thought you were being deliberately obtuse and admitted my error. I now suspect you simply mixed two comments up and forgot where each line of discussion originated.

If I had to guess, it would be that you're still somehow bothered by our disagreement in the Dutch thread, because really, we aren't even disagreeing about anything in this thread, other than whether I'm obtuse or not.
Again, I don't think you were being obtuse. At least, not initially ;) I said plainly that I misread your confusion as intentional. It seems like things are clearer now. And my snarkiness is mostly for entertainment value. Don't take it personally. It is meant much in the same way as when you call me darling or some of the other snarky things you say. I know that if we met you'd probably buy me a beer or a soda and me you, depending on your age.

Here is the statement that we've been talking about the whole time.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10614427&postcount=236

It was a comment completely separate in purpose and meaning from the other comments. Some of those comments were about specific Christians or about GnI's experiences in the south, but your response was to a comment clearly discussing the organized Christian Church that has been around for 2000 years and it's deliberate behavior.

At what point were you specifically referencing the Catholic Church based in Rome?
That's why you told me I was off base to discuss the nature of the "Church".
You seem to have dropped that line of attack though.


In the comment you replied to he and I were directly referencing behavior towards those not part of the organized Church over the last 2 millenia, not specifically. You basically ignored context which is a really BAD thing to do in a debate if you're interested in being taken seriously.

If in fact the discussion was focused soley on the Roman Catholic Church, then my comments would be out of context. If that's true, my bad, my apology.
Since I can't see any reason to support that thought, i'm good with things as they are.


Here is my reply to him, so I appear to have understood. It appears the communication problem was entirely on your end.

Yes, you appear to have understood your own conversation. I've never denied you that.
You seem to have been lost on the tangent I took, c'est la vie, I've done my best to explain it, but it's not helping apparently.

At what point were you specifically referencing the Catholic Church based in Rome?
That's why you told me I was off base to discuss the nature of the "Church".
You seem to have dropped that line of attack though.

I was actually speaking of the early Church that basically set the stage on which all the other large Christian sects dance. It's 'home' city is not as important as the fact that it is the Church that compiled the Bible used by nearly all Christian sects today and the Church that controlled the majority of the Western world for the majority portion of the last 2000 years.

If in fact the discussion was focused soley on the Roman Catholic Church, then my comments would be out of context. If that's true, my bad, my apology.
Since I can't see any reason to support that thought, i'm good with things as they are.

Yes, perhaps the 2000 year old Church he was referencing was the Southern Baptists. My mistake. Sorry for trying to force reason into the discussion. Carry on.

Yes, you appear to have understod your own conversation. I've never denied you that.
You seem to have been lost on the tangent I took, c'est la vie, I've done my best to explain it, but it's not helping apparently.
The problem is I know what you meant which is what you are explaining. The problem is you keep suggesting your point was in reply to something that wasn't said. I actually showed you what was said and why I objected to your reply and you keep simply skirting the issue. It doesn't matter if you don't wish to settle it. However, it's fairly clear what GnI said and you seem to be the only one who didn't follow it.

I'm certain that your reference to disjointed souls was NOT a reference to individuals. Uh-huh. Nothing wacky about that assertion. What kind of an idiot would read disjointed souls to mean individuals? How silly of me.

No, everything is wacky about that.
What are you talking about?
I just told you that GnI didn't reference individuals, but that I did.
What are you reading???

Allow me to state for the record that I'm not going to disagree with everything you say, but if you continue to disagree with me even while I'm agreeing with you, it's going to be a vicious circle.

The actions of the Church were deliberate and active and can be constantly referenced. Yes, the players changed and sometime not ever player was on the same page, but it is possible to make a generalized statement. Could I not make the argument that for several hundred years Western Europe sought to colonize the world? Of course I could. They did. It wasn't always the same leaders and those leaders didn't always agree, but like the leaders of the major Chritians Churches, until recently perhaps, they have been headed in the same direction and coming from the same place.


All very true statements.
Allow me to pose a question though, if the leader a major Christian religion seeks military or political domination and uses his power as the head of a Christian religion to do so, is it fair to say that the 'Church' is doing so? Or is the 'Church' the tool by which a man, or men, is/are doing so?
I personally believe the 'Church' has been both glorious and abused through out it's history, sometimes it seems as though the abuse though is all that is seen.
If I believed that abuse was deliberate and practised by the 'Church' I would reject the 'Church'. The only reason I don't is because I reject what flawed, and sometimes even evil men did with the 'Church'.
For me, that is an important distinction.
So, if someone ascribes motive to the 'Church', my first thought will generally be to consider whether it is actually the 'Church' or just more flawed people useing its name.

Notice, he said it does appear to be fairly deliberate (deliberate in quotes) "at times". I think he made his point ABUNDANTLY clear...

Sure he did. I've never said he didn't.
It also sparked a tangental thought and conversation from me regarding the context he placed the 'Church' and its actions in.
I'm still baffled why that bothers you enough to have pursued this through so many posts. Perhaps it's merely my perception, but you seem upset that I even responded to his ABUNDANTLY clear point.

No, actually, I didn't.

You can say you didn't, but if you could direct me to where I gave you attitude prior to being asked if I had a point in a snarky post, I'll retract.

And my snarkiness is mostly for entertainment value. Don't take it personally. It is meant much in the same way as when you call me darling or some of the other snarky things you say. I know that if we met you'd probably buy me a beer or a soda and me you, depending on your age.

Good, we're on the same page there at least.
:)

Oh, and I'm long past soda age, I'm likely beating you in age, but then, perhaps not, never can be sure on the Internet

Yes, perhaps the 2000 year old Church he was referencing was the Southern Baptists. My mistake. Sorry for trying to force reason into the discussion. Carry on.


LOL. See, THAT is exactly my point.
If one feels persecuted somehow by Southern Baptists, that does not equate to the 2000 year old 'Church'.

The problem is I know what you meant which is what you are explaining.

I can't imagine how that could be a problem, but I'd be willing to try it.

The problem is you keep suggesting your point was in reply to something that wasn't said.

My tangental point was a reply to the statements that the Organised 'Church' had a deliberate policy of stamping out personal religion and that the 2000 year old 'Church' had practise. Statements with some qualifications, but the statements exists. Posts 229 and 232 for reference.

However, it's fairly clear what GnI said and you seem to be the only one who didn't follow it.

I followed what he said just fine thank you very much.
There's a reason I have continually referred to my own points as being a tangent from them. Perhaps I should explain how a tangent works?

No, everything is wacky about that.
What are you talking about?
I just told you that GnI didn't reference individuals, but that I did.
What are you reading???

Allow me to state for the record that I'm not going to disagree with everything you say, but if you continue to disagree with me even while I'm agreeing with you, it's going to be a vicious circle.

Um, you said I was drawing the idea that you were talking about individuals when you said it was not a single organized entity. Except that not what you said. You referenced disjointed souls. Now, you pretend like you said something else. Agreeing with my while being dishonest doesn't earn any favor from me.

All very true statements.
Allow me to pose a question though, if the leader a major Christian religion seeks military or political domination and uses his power as the head of a Christian religion to do so, is it fair to say that the 'Church' is doing so? Or is the 'Church' the tool by which a man, or men, is/are doing so?
I personally believe the 'Church' has been both glorious and abused through out it's history, sometimes it seems as though the abuse though is all that is seen.
If I believed that abuse was deliberate and practised by the 'Church' I would reject the 'Church'. The only reason I don't is because I reject what flawed, and sometimes even evil men did with the 'Church'.
For me, that is an important distinction.
So, if someone ascribes motive to the 'Church', my first thought will generally be to consider whether it is actually the 'Church' or just more flawed people useing its name.

Hmmmm... you just took out the entire idea of the Church. The church chooses to be run by a single person that is propped up by the members of the Church. He was acting as a representative of the Church. Yes it is the Church doing it. According to you America is not in Iraq. It's ludicrous.

Sure he did. I've never said he didn't.
It also sparked a tangental thought and conversation from me regarding the context he placed the 'Church' and its actions in.
I'm still baffled why that bothers you enough to have pursued this through so many posts. Perhaps it's merely my perception, but you seem upset that I even responded to his ABUNDANTLY clear point.

Uh-huh. Seriously, this is just sad. You say one thing. Then pretend like you said something else. When I demonstrate it wasn't that. Your point morphs again. How pleasant. I'm not bothered. I'm enjoying embarrassing you. It amuses me. I hope you never stop being disingenuous.

You can say you didn't, but if you could direct me to where I gave you attitude prior to being asked if I had a point in a snarky post, I'll retract.

I said I was being snarky. I enjoy it. Particularly when people earn it by disingenuous.

Good, we're on the same page there at least.
:)

Oh, and I'm long past soda age, I'm likely beating you in age, but then, perhaps not, never can be sure on the Internet

That's exactly it, though... I argue that it is almost intrinsic in [b]organised[/i] religion, to destroy the infidel.

Indeed, it seems only those parts of the movement that identify themselves as OUTSIDE of the conventional heirarchy of organised religion (like Christian Wiccans, or Gnostic Christians)... or the individualists... that seem happy to practise a faith that is not destructive.

Do you think that it is fair to saddle religion with that though?
I think you could make a case that it is the human condition, that almost by nature we are xenophobes in any significant groups.

Um, you said I was drawing the idea that you were talking about individuals when you said it was not a single organized entity. Except that not what you said. You referenced disjointed souls. Now, you pretend like you said something else. Agreeing with my while being dishonest doesn't earn any favor from me.


Now you have lost me.
I no longer have any idea what you are saying except that you're calling me a liar. That will quickly move you far far down the list of people I'll converse with.
I'll leave this paragraph and simply tell you that you have either completely misread my posts or mistyped somewhere and I didn't catch a missing "not" or something.

Hmmmm... you just took out the entire idea of the Church. The church chooses to be run by a single person that is propped up by the members of the Church. He was acting as a representative of the Church. Yes it is the Church doing it. According to you America is not in Iraq. It's ludicrous.

Perhaps I took out your idea of the 'Church', mine is still intact.
When I talk about any single person running the 'Church' the only person I would reference would be the carpenter from Nazareth.
What the representative of a particular religion does is not necessarily what I believe the 'Church' is doing.

Clearly though, we are using the term 'Church' with different connotations and is likely causing a significant amount of our messages to be lost in translation.

Uh-huh. Seriously, this is just sad. You say one thing. Then pretend like you said something else. When I demonstrate it wasn't that. Your point morphs again.

My point hasn't changed yet.
Prove me wrong, show where I've changed my point.

I've already shown how you morphed from saying you were talking exclusively about the Roman Catholic church to suddenly saying you were talking about the whole of the Church.

More like... the disparate children of a singular entity... following in daddy's footsteps.

And, they might all be oppressing different groups... sometimes even each other... but the principle seems to remain consistent.

Sadly, I can't even disagree when you put it in those terms.

It depends... did 'Earlier Me' just write the note for kicks?

If the note is the BASIS of actions for 'Later Me', then 'Later Me' is (I argue) absolved of the responsibility of 'morality'. 'Later Me' doesn't HAVE TO consider his (her.... my?) actions... because the 'correct response' is already laid out.

All you have to do, is put Tab A in Slot B. Batteries Not Included. No Morality Required.

So, are you saying that just knowing what the moral choice is; that is the be all, end all of morality?
I find that tough to swallow. As either being true or that you're not just fishing again.
Humans are well known for making choices other than those they know or believe to be the moral choice, we don't have any neat tabs or slots or batteries.

Now you have lost me.
I no longer have any idea what you are saying except that you're calling me a liar. That will quickly move you far far down the list of people I'll converse with.
I'll leave this paragraph and simply tell you that you have either completely misread my posts or mistyped somewhere and I didn't catch a missing "not" or something.

Seriously, explaining things to you is getting tiresome. Your 'agreement' with me was a post claiming that read the individual comment into your post when you were referring to the individual sects.

Proceeding FORWARD from there, *I* made the comment that the 2000 year old Church that you rightly indicate he referred to is in fact not a single Organised entity (which is where you're drawing the "bunch of individuals" statement from). If that point is being contested, we can travel that path.

You play down your point there and then indicate that I was "drawing" something out of your post, rather than you PLAINLY saying ir. Saying the Church is a bunch of individuals and simply saying it's not a "single organized entity" is not the same thing. To say so is disingenuous. You have constantly misrepresented his posts and your own and as I said, it's getting tiresome.

Perhaps I took out your idea of the 'Church', mine is still intact.
When I talk about any single person running the 'Church' the only person I would reference would be the carpenter from Nazareth.
What the representative of a particular religion does is not necessarily what I believe the 'Church' is doing.

Okay. Last I checked that carpenter is dead. The Church is an entity that elects a representative to run it. That person acts on behalf of the Church. Like I said, you might as well argue that America didn't fight in WWII. It's a silly point and basically turns the English language on its head. Play silly games if you want but you can be quite sure of GnI meant and he didn't mean every single person in the Church. He meant the Church as an entity and it most certainly is represented by the Pope despite your silly arguments to the contrary.

Clearly though, we are using the term 'Church' with different connotations and is likely causing a significant amount of our messages to be lost in translation.

Lost in translation? That's your claim. I was trying to be nice, but this has just gotten sad. Go ahead put me on your list of people not to converse with. I'll still be here pointing how sad your dishonest attempts to twist this stuff around the axle really is. Seriously, does anyone actually think you don't know what we're referring to when we reference the Church.

My point hasn't changed yet.
Prove me wrong, show where I've changed my point.

Uh-huh. I already demonstrated that. Even if you aren't following I'm sure the people reading along are, my friend.

I've already shown how you morphed from saying you were talking exclusively about the Roman Catholic church to suddenly saying you were talking about the whole of the Church.

I didn't morph. They are the same thing. The His reference to the 2000 year old church was specific, but the point he was making was general. Follow along, puppy.

This is why I hate what Clinton did, because ever since he did that everyone thinks they're being profound by twisting the meanings of words like context doesn't in most cases make their use here. Seriously, in regular conversations does anyone go, "what did you mean by the word rug there?" Nope. Only in debates where people think it covers their butt when they get nailed to the wall on some ridiculous point.

Here we get to here about how there is no unified church. Then one gets referenced. Then you admit there is one. Then we get back on point but suddenly there isn't one again. And THEN to really make things ridiculous the Church can't act because on JESUS CHRIST Himself can act on behalf of the Church. Obviously, the chosen representative of the Church can't act on behalf of the Church. A representative considered to, oh, I don't know, represent... the Church. Well, that's just silly, now isn't it?

Do you think that it is fair to saddle religion with that though?
I think you could make a case that it is the human condition, that almost by nature we are xenophobes in any significant groups.

Oh, certainly religion is not the only thing that tries to 'stamp out' minorities... but it IS the engine that has tried to stamp out RELIGIOUS minorities.

It IS the same all over... where whites are a majority, a lot of whites will ostracise other skin colours. Where the black skin is majority, the same thing.

However - what I am talking about here, is the fact that, from Nicaea onwards, there has been a kind of 'official' sanction against other thoughts on religion... that has basically supressed alternative paths unless they were followed in secret, or until those underground (or revolutionary) movements had enough weight-of-numbers to protect their platform.

One can look back over the history of Christianity... and see that Nicaea was the catalyst of supression.. since it was the first REAL movement to codify what was 'acceptable' as Christian. We don't really have any of the Organised Christian movements attempting to overturn Nicaea... indeed, if you go and sit in most churches... sooner or later you'll probably hear statements about why 'only THIS message is right'.

Is it as prevalent now as it was...? Maybe not overtly... the problem now is more likely to be when a largely Baptist council decides they can't 'zone' a Kingdom Hall in their town, for example.

Going back to the comment, though...: "Do you think that it is fair to saddle religion with that though? "

I certainly don't think we can ABSOLVE organised religion of it. Religion is SUPPOSED (surely) to be about making ourselves BETTER than 'the human condition', no? So - we shouldn't cut any slack... indeed, we should EXPECT better.

And yet, it seems that it is only the 'personal faith' version of religion that actively WILL lift itself above the condition. The organised version just seems to codify the condition, wrap it in ceremonial robes, and call it part OF the faith.

So, are you saying that just knowing what the moral choice is; that is the be all, end all of morality?
I find that tough to swallow. As either being true or that you're not just fishing again.
Humans are well known for making choices other than those they know or believe to be the moral choice, we don't have any neat tabs or slots or batteries.

Not simply 'knowing' what the moral choice is... but codifying it.

Let's look at an example... fornication.

Where there is a specific pronouncement AGAINST individuals exploring each other, every time you meet another person that appeals, you don't need to THINK about how you 'feel' about that person... you can just 'cut off' those feelings because you already 'know' they are 'immoral'.

So - you don't enjoy that other person... but it was a 'moral' OBEDIENCE, not a choice.

Indeed, where that pronouncement exists... and you decide that WITH THIS person, you are going to do it anyway... perhaps perversely, THAT is the instance where a 'moral' decision has been made.

I'm not arguing about the nature of the specific rule here... but about what having a codified rule means.

Ultimately... it doesn't matter if you got that 'rule' from an old book, from Sunday School on the weekend, or from a list of rules you, yourself, made up... it is the fact that you HAVE a 'code of moral laws' that actually PREVENTS you from making moral judgements.

possible? yes. probable? only if the religeon in question is something other then nearly all falvours of christianity or islam, and a few varieties of several other things, or in other words any chauvanistic organized belief.

=^^=
.../\...

Okay. Last I checked that carpenter is dead. The Church is an entity that elects a representative to run it. That person acts on behalf of the Church. Like I said, you might as well argue that America didn't fight in WWII. It's a silly point and basically turns the English language on its head. Play silly games if you want but you can be quite sure of GnI meant and he didn't mean every single person in the Church. He meant the Church as an entity and it most certainly is represented by the Pope despite your silly arguments to the contrary.


Exactly.

We KNOW that the religion is SUPPOSED to be about the Carpenter... but if one looks at what that carpenter said about religion... everything from Nicaea onwards is basically a perversion of the message... a return to the OLD religion.

Christ taught PERSONAL relationship with God, taught PERSONAL discernment, and a PERSONAL relationship with scripture...

And the ORDER of importance of those lessons is important to US, I feel.

First and foremost MUST be the relationship with God, and sadly, most modern Christians actually lack this. What they have is 'membership' of a church, which is a very different thing.

Second is the discernment. Over and over, the message is to not judge by conventional measure... but to weigh merits. Jesus does not say that the woman brought before him is NOT a sinner, but he asks others to weigh their own sin in the balance, and make a 'moral' decision about the importance of relative trangression.

Third is the relationship with scripture. It's good, he says... but he rails against TAUGHT scripture. He almost fights a war against the Pharisee tradition of groups of people 'deciding' what scripture means... and then making that 'version' appear somehow 'official'. And yet, that is EXACTLY the problem with EVERY (major) 'christian' tradition that has established itself in the wake of Nicaea.

There ARE individuals - even WITHIN 'organised' Christianity - that follow the 'spirit' of the Carpenter, rather than the letter of the 'law'... but the organisations themselves are apostate entities, on that score.

Not simply 'knowing' what the moral choice is... but codifying it.

Let's look at an example... fornication.

Where there is a specific pronouncement AGAINST individuals exploring each other, every time you meet another person that appeals, you don't need to THINK about how you 'feel' about that person... you can just 'cut off' those feelings because you already 'know' they are 'immoral'.

So - you don't enjoy that other person... but it was a 'moral' OBEDIENCE, not a choice.

I realize that I am a late arrival here, but if you will tolerate my criticism, how on earth can you separate a 'moral' obedience from a choice? You can have choices without morals, but you cannot have morals without choices.


Indeed, where that pronouncement exists... and you decide that WITH THIS person, you are going to do it anyway... perhaps perversely, THAT is the instance where a 'moral' decision has been made.

I'm not arguing about the nature of the specific rule here... but about what having a codified rule means.

Ultimately... it doesn't matter if you got that 'rule' from an old book, from Sunday School on the weekend, or from a list of rules you, yourself, made up... it is the fact that you HAVE a 'code of moral laws' that actually PREVENTS you from making moral judgements.

You seem to be suggesting that having a moral code of laws means that you don't think anymore about what is and what isn't moral.


But when someone understands the reasons behind the morals, and keeps those same morals anyway, then it is possible to have a code of moral laws and think at the same time. I would argue that having and keeping a moral code of laws does not necessarily prevent someone from making moral judgements. Like Jesus said, adultery begins in the mind, and it is logical that prevention of adultery requires an exercise of discernment, intelligence, reason, etc., including making moral judgements.

Okay. Last I checked that carpenter is dead. The Church is an entity that elects a representative to run it. That person acts on behalf of the Church.

Mister, that carpender certainly isn't dead. He IS the head of the church. And any church leader that doesn't answer to Him is either a wolf or a false shepherd, according to the scriptures.

Mister, that carpender certainly isn't dead. He IS the head of the church. And any church leader that doesn't answer to Him is either a wolf or a false shepherd, according to the scriptures.

Not spiritually dead, physically dead. And you really should read the context of the statement. I was talking about the actions of the leaders of the Church and it was suggested that is not the actions of the Church and that the only actions of the Church are actions of the Carpenter. Now Jesus may be spiritually alive, but he's not actively guiding the Church by any means. Unless you would honestly suggest that Jesus was responsible for the Crusades and burning people at the stake and whatnot.

I realize that I am a late arrival here, but if you will tolerate my criticism, how on earth can you separate a 'moral' obedience from a choice? You can have choices without morals, but you cannot have morals without choices.

His point is that if you simply perform to remain within the law rather than with an actual consideration for what is right and wrong, then it's just obedience which is why he put 'moral' in quotes.

You seem to be suggesting that having a moral code of laws means that you don't think anymore about what is and what isn't moral.

No. He doesn't. You need to read back further. He was saying that if you simply obey those laws then you are not moral. If you continue to consider right and wrong and morality then following those laws is moral if you consider them so.


But when someone understands the reasons behind the morals, and keeps those same morals anyway, then it is possible to have a code of moral laws and think at the same time. I would argue that having and keeping a moral code of laws does not necessarily prevent someone from making moral judgements. Like Jesus said, adultery begins in the mind, and it is logical that prevention of adultery requires an exercise of discernment, intelligence, reason, etc., including making moral judgements.
You are making his point. We have been saying all along that what defines morality is the consideration not the action. A dog can do the right thing if I make him fearful enough of not doing so. What has been continually repeated is that with or without the code of moral laws, it's the consideration that determines morality, not adhering to those laws in the interest of avoiding punishment, or reaping awards.

Context is very important here and you should have read back further.

His point is that if you simply perform to remain within the law rather than with an actual consideration for what is right and wrong, then it's just obedience which is why he put 'moral' in quotes.

No. He doesn't. You need to read back further. He was saying that if you simply obey those laws then you are not moral. If you continue to consider right and wrong and morality then following those laws is moral if you consider them so.

You are making his point. We have been saying all along that what defines morality is the consideration not the action. A dog can do the right thing if I make him fearful enough of not doing so. What has been continually repeated is that with or without the code of moral laws, it's the consideration that determines morality, not adhering to those laws in the interest of avoiding punishment, or reaping awards.

Context is very important here and you should have read back further.

Exactly... it's obvious in the context (I think).

And... well... yes!

Jocabia is hereby nominated to post my responses, if I happen to be away for a while. :)

Seriously, explaining things to you is getting tiresome. Your 'agreement' with me was a post claiming that read the individual comment into your post when you were referring to the individual sects.


I've been referring to both individuals and individual sects all along.
If I was less than clear, I apologise.
At no point did I say that GnI was talking about individuals.

You play down your point there and then indicate that I was "drawing" something out of your post, rather than you PLAINLY saying ir. Saying the Church is a bunch of individuals and simply saying it's not a "single organized entity" is not the same thing. To say so is disingenuous. You have constantly misrepresented his posts and your own and as I said, it's getting tiresome.


I don't know what "drawing" means to you, but I wasn't using it in a negative fashion. Yes, I PLAINLY said that. Not in those specific words of course, but I don't deny meaning that. I don't why you believe that precludes also meaning the 'Church' is not a single organised entity, but I haven't misrepresented anything. It does appear though that we mean quite different things.
Do you always attempt demonise and question the motive of those that have a different understanding than you do?

Okay. Last I checked that carpenter is dead. The Church is an entity that elects a representative to run it. That person acts on behalf of the Church. Like I said, you might as well argue that America didn't fight in WWII. It's a silly point and basically turns the English language on its head. Play silly games if you want but you can be quite sure of GnI meant and he didn't mean every single person in the Church. He meant the Church as an entity and it most certainly is represented by the Pope despite your silly arguments to the contrary.

And here we find ourselves at the crux of all of our differences.
I don't understand why you didn't continue on your line of it being the Roman Catholic church from before, we could have saved ourselves quite a bit of effort.

First off, if you didn't close your book too soon, you must have read that according to the story, the carpenter rose from the dead shortly after the whole dying business. It's a bit of a cornerstone to the Christian faith, you might want to be familiar with it.
When I say the 'Church' I never ever mean, the Roman Catholic church of which the Pope is the head. If mean the Roman Catholic church, I would say, the Roman Catholic church. When I say the 'Church', I'm referring to all those that make up the body of Christ of which Jesus is the head.
Within the body of Christ there are many individuals and many entities of which the Roman Catholic church is one.

So, it appears that we have never been talking about the same thing at all, not surprising given how pointless our discussion has been. I say the 'Church' meaning one thing and you read, the 'Church' as something else.

Given that then, am I correct in saying then you you believe that you and GnI were discussing the actions of the Roman Catholic church in deliberately stamping out personal religion and that you have believed my point to have been the rather odd point that the Roman Catholic church is not an entity but rather individuals that couldn't deliberately do anything?

If I am correct in that assessment, and if in fact you were discussing the Roman Cathiolic church, then you have my most sincere apology for interrupting your discussion with nonsense.

The only question left really is, what was GnI discussing?
I truly believed he was referring to a more universal 'Church' with the a meaning closer to what I use and his subsequent mention of how this 'Church' has impacted him in the Bible Belt gave me confidence that he didn't mean the RC church (nor simply the Southern Baptists that he interacts directly with) but was referring to a more universal church.
My beliefs aside though, you have talked more with GnI than I and perhaps have a common understanding of what you mean by Organised Religion and the 'Church'.
In that case, I guess I'd ask GnI, if he's still following along, what he meant.

Lost in translation? That's your claim. I was trying to be nice, but this has just gotten sad. Go ahead put me on your list of people not to converse with. I'll still be here pointing how sad your dishonest attempts to twist this stuff around the axle really is. Seriously, does anyone actually think you don't know what we're referring to when we reference the Church.

I apparently had no idea what you meant by the 'Church', we obviously use the term differently.
How dishonest of me to have a different understanding.

I didn't morph. They are the same thing.

To you they are.
I can only presume you are a Roman Catholic?

I've been referring to both individuals and individual sects all along.
If I was less than clear, I apologise.
At no point did I say that GnI was talking about individuals.



I don't know what "drawing" means to you, but I wasn't using it in a negative fashion. Yes, I PLAINLY said that. Not in those specific words of course, but I don't deny meaning that. I don't why you believe that precludes also meaning the 'Church' is not a single organised entity, but I haven't misrepresented anything. It does appear though that we mean quite different things.
Do you always attempt demonise and question the motive of those that have a different understanding than you do?



And here we find ourselves at the crux of all of our differences.
I don't understand why you didn't continue on your line of it being the Roman Catholic church from before, we could have saved ourselves quite a bit of effort.

First off, if you didn't close your book too soon, you must have read that according to the story, the carpenter rose from the dead shortly after the whole dying business. It's a bit of a cornerstone to the Christian faith, you might want to be familiar with it.
When I say the 'Church' I never ever mean, the Roman Catholic church of which the Pope is the head. If mean the Roman Catholic church, I would say, the Roman Catholic church. When I say the 'Church', I'm referring to all those that make up the body of Christ of which Jesus is the head.
Within the body of Christ there are many individuals and many entities of which the Roman Catholic church is one.

So, it appears that we have never been talking about the same thing at all, not surprising given how pointless our discussion has been. I say the 'Church' meaning one thing and you read, the 'Church' as something else.

Given that then, am I correct in saying then you you believe that you and GnI were discussing the actions of the Roman Catholic church in deliberately stamping out personal religion and that you have believed my point to have been the rather odd point that the Roman Catholic church is not an entity but rather individuals that couldn't deliberately do anything?

If I am correct in that assessment, and if in fact you were discussing the Roman Cathiolic church, then you have my most sincere apology for interrupting your discussion with nonsense.

The only question left really is, what was GnI discussing?
I truly believed he was referring to a more universal 'Church' with the a meaning closer to what I use and his subsequent mention of how this 'Church' has impacted him in the Bible Belt gave me confidence that he didn't mean the RC church (nor simply the Southern Baptists that he interacts directly with) but was referring to a more universal church.
My beliefs aside though, you have talked more with GnI than I and perhaps have a common understanding of what you mean by Organised Religion and the 'Church'.
In that case, I guess I'd ask GnI, if he's still following along, what he meant.



I apparently had no idea what you meant by the 'Church', we obviously use the term differently.
How dishonest of me to have a different understanding.



To you they are.
I can only presume you are a Roman Catholic?

Organised Religion (specifically of the Christian variety, obviously... context) means all of the established 'organised' sects derived from the Nicaea origin.

The Church is the collective mass of those sects, stemming from Nicaea. Arguably, the most powerful of which IS the papal sect, to which Jocabia has alluded.

Note - Jocabia doesn't say that the Pope is the ONLY 'representative' of the Church. But he is, arguably, the most powerful, by far.

Note - The flesh of Jesus died at Calvary. That is what Jocabia means by 'the carpenter is dead'. As a Christian, Jocabia still embraces Jesus as 'living entity'... just not HERE, on this mortal plain... I believe.

To you they are.
I can only presume you are a Roman Catholic?

I'm bored with this, but you assume wrong. You missed the point. He made a specific reference in a general point. Doing so is not a contradiction. You separated the two and tried to make them a contradiction when I referenced both of them. Your lack of understanding does not make for an argument.

Organised Religion (specifically of the Christian variety, obviously... context) means all of the established 'organised' sects derived from the Nicaea origin.

The Church is the collective mass of those sects, stemming from Nicaea. Arguably, the most powerful of which IS the papal sect, to which Jocabia has alluded.

Note - Jocabia doesn't say that the Pope is the ONLY 'representative' of the Church. But he is, arguably, the most powerful, by far.

Note - The flesh of Jesus died at Calvary. That is what Jocabia means by 'the carpenter is dead'. As a Christian, Jocabia still embraces Jesus as 'living entity'... just not HERE, on this mortal plain... I believe.

And now you are permitted to be my spokesperson when I am not here as well. Only, you have to add a little more snarkiness. Occasionally hint at the fact that you're giggling or something. Otherwise it simply doesn't sound like me.

And now you are permitted to be my spokesperson when I am not here as well. Only, you have to add a little more snarkiness. Occasionally hint at the fact that you're giggling or something. Otherwise it simply doesn't sound like me.

Well... reading that made me laugh... so, is that close enough?

I don't know if I can do snarky.

(Although, I think I told someone in a thread the other day, that trying to argue with them was the allegorical equivalent of arm-wrestling an egg... would that do?)

Not simply 'knowing' what the moral choice is... but codifying it.

Let's look at an example... fornication.

Where there is a specific pronouncement AGAINST individuals exploring each other, every time you meet another person that appeals, you don't need to THINK about how you 'feel' about that person... you can just 'cut off' those feelings because you already 'know' they are 'immoral'.

So - you don't enjoy that other person... but it was a 'moral' OBEDIENCE, not a choice.

Indeed, where that pronouncement exists... and you decide that WITH THIS person, you are going to do it anyway... perhaps perversely, THAT is the instance where a 'moral' decision has been made.

I'm not arguing about the nature of the specific rule here... but about what having a codified rule means.

Ultimately... it doesn't matter if you got that 'rule' from an old book, from Sunday School on the weekend, or from a list of rules you, yourself, made up... it is the fact that you HAVE a 'code of moral laws' that actually PREVENTS you from making moral judgements.

I wish you could explain the technique to just 'cut off' feelings that one 'knows' to be immoral.
Do you believe that works in practice?
Or is that simply a theoretical construct to support the conversation?

I'm trying to imagine what observations might lead you to that assertion, but I can only imagine a few possible exceptions, nothing that would have any prevalence. Perhaps you have examples you could share?

One fashion where I can see the codification leading to obedience without morality would be through peer pressure.
If you're following someone else's codified morals only because your community will punish you for non-compliance, then I see obedience lacking any moral choice.

Not spiritually dead, physically dead. And you really should read the context of the statement. I was talking about the actions of the leaders of the Church and it was suggested that is not the actions of the Church and that the only actions of the Church are actions of the Carpenter. Now Jesus may be spiritually alive, but he's not actively guiding the Church by any means. Unless you would honestly suggest that Jesus was responsible for the Crusades and burning people at the stake and whatnot.


Physically dead?
The story says he physically resurrected. In the story, He actually makes it clear to His followers than He is flesh, not spirit.

The suggestion you reference was never actually suggested, but I'm able to see now why you continue to miss each point I make.

I'm bored with this, but you assume wrong.

I didn't assume.
I made a guess based on presumption and asked, thus the question mark punctuating the sentence.

Odd that you're bored now though. I finally discover where and why we've been off track, and you won't even respond or address it??
I could have sworn you told me you were enjoying embarrassing me or something to that effect.

You did respond to the least important thing I said in the entire post though, again, how odd.

Everyone is religious. Atheists are religious because they believe in atheism. This is because all beliefs are interpretations of facts are based on your presuppositions. So really, an evolutionist is just as religious as a Creationist -- just opposite religions. They both believe in something that they can't necessarily always prove -- Creationism is based on the belief in God, and Evolutionism is based on the belief in no God. Both believe something.

Therefore, it's only a matter of what the actual morals are of each respective religion that separates us.

And the respond to the very earliest posts: I was not forced into any belief in God. I started reading the Bible and believing in Him because I felt in my heart that it was the right thing to do -- I was fed up with secularism. And yes, secularism is a religion... that believes that any religion other than secularism should not be publically practiced.

Everyone is religious. Atheists are religious because they believe in atheism. This is because all beliefs are interpretations of facts are based on your presuppositions. So really, an evolutionist is just as religious as a Creationist -- just opposite religions. They both believe in something that they can't necessarily always prove -- Creationism is based on the belief in God, and Evolutionism is based on the belief in no God. Both believe something.

Therefore, it's only a matter of what the actual morals are of each respective religion that separates us.

And the respond to the very earliest posts: I was not forced into any belief in God. I started reading the Bible and believing in Him because I felt in my heart that it was the right thing to do -- I was fed up with secularism. And yes, secularism is a religion... that believes that any religion other than secularism should not be publically practiced.

Wow, there is so much wrong in this post, I'm not sure where to begin. First of all, some atheists believe that there is no God - they make that assertion. Others simply do not believe that there is a God because of lack of empirical evidence. They do not believe in an idea that there is no God, they simply do not believe its opposite either.

Secondly, nothing about the theory of evolution presupposes that one must believe there is no God. In fact, evolutionary theory has nothing whatsoever to say on the subject. One can be a theist or an atheist and still recognize evolutionary theory as being valid. A belief in creation is not opposed to a recognition of evolution.

Meanwhile, I have yet to meet anyone who has a problem with someone publicly practicing their religion. It is practicing their religion with public funds that those who might be referred to as secularists oppose - as that forces religion upon others. Meanwhile, you set up another false dichotomy. There is no reason that one cannot be a secularist in political terms but still be a Christian/Muslim/Jew/Hindu/etc.

Wow, there is so much wrong in this post, I'm not sure where to begin. First of all, some atheists believe that there is no God - they make that assertion. Others simply do not believe that there is a God because of lack of empirical evidence. They do not believe in an idea that there is no God, they simply do not believe its opposite either.

Secondly, nothing about the theory of evolution presupposes that one must believe there is no God. In fact, evolutionary theory has nothing whatsoever to say on the subject. One can be a theist or an atheist and still recognize evolutionary theory as being valid. A belief in creation is not opposed to a recognition of evolution.

Meanwhile, I have yet to meet anyone who has a problem with someone publicly practicing their religion. It is practicing their religion with public funds that those who might be referred to as secularists oppose - as that forces religion upon others. Meanwhile, you set up another false dichotomy. There is no reason that one cannot be a secularist in political terms but still be a Christian/Muslim/Jew/Hindu/etc.
Most of what I said was based on my presuppositions though. You haven't actually repudiated anything that I said; you have merely told me what your beliefs are. It's no different from an argument consisting of "I'm right," "No, you're wrong," "Nuh-uh, you're wrong," "No, I'm right," etc.

For example, I believe that evolutionism is based on a nonbelief in God because I reject theistic evolution and because I believe that anything that isn't for God is therefore against God.

If you believe that one could be a secular politician and a religious person in his personal life, that's still a belief, and thus defines a religion in itself. Christianity holds that the teachings of Jesus should be applied to everything in your life. So if a politician chooses to be secular, that is a religious belief: that Jesus shouldn't be everywhere in your life.

Organised Religion (specifically of the Christian variety, obviously... context) means all of the established 'organised' sects derived from the Nicaea origin.


So, not just the Roman Catholic church then. Good, I didn't misunderstand.


The Church is the collective mass of those sects, stemming from Nicaea.

Right, again, not just the Roman Catholic church. 2 for 2 so far.


Arguably, the most powerful of which IS the papal sect, to which Jocabia has alluded.

Certainly. What's the relevancy though? Does it matter to our discussion which sect is powerful? Does acknowledging that the RC church is powerful have any impact on how you experience the Southern Baptists dealing with your personal religion or lack thereof?


Note - Jocabia doesn't say that the Pope is the ONLY 'representative' of the Church. But he is, arguably, the most powerful, by far.

Once more, I agree regarding the Pope's 'power' but again, I don't see how it is relevant to the discussion.
I do (now) understand how Jocabia interprets the references to the 'Church' although why I'm baffled if she isn't RC herself.

I would challenge you on your defense of her stating he is not the ONLY representatative.

The church chooses to be run by a single person that is propped up by the members of the Church. He was acting as a representative of the Church. Yes it is the Church doing it.

And

The Church is an entity that elects a representative to run it. That person acts on behalf of the Church.
...snip...
He meant the Church as an entity and it most certainly is represented by the Pope

Bolds mine for emphasis.
You do dance masterfully GnI, but regardless of what you think she might have meant, that isn't what she said.
If she wants to hold others accountable for precisely what was said and dissallow for any variance of understanding or to even attempt to understand what was meant, then this gander will have its pound of flesh to badly mix some metaphors.


Note - The flesh of Jesus died at Calvary.

...and rose at Gethsemene.
If one accepts the story.

Physically dead?
The story says he physically resurrected. In the story, He actually makes it clear to His followers than He is flesh, not spirit.

The suggestion you reference was never actually suggested, but I'm able to see now why you continue to miss each point I make.

Really? Where is He in the flesh? Where is this flesh?

I didn't assume.
I made a guess based on presumption and asked, thus the question mark punctuating the sentence.

Odd that you're bored now though. I finally discover where and why we've been off track, and you won't even respond or address it??
I could have sworn you told me you were enjoying embarrassing me or something to that effect.

You did respond to the least important thing I said in the entire post though, again, how odd.

No, you didn't. I don't believe that you really don't understand what we mean when we reference the Church and it has constantly been explained to you.

You suggested that the Church cannot be subject to the actions of one man and I referenced that in our history the Church most certainly could be managed and directed by one man elected into his position by the Church. You keep taking those statements out of context to make bizarre statements, but only people without the reading comprehension skills to use context will be fooled.

So, not just the Roman Catholic church then. Good, I didn't misunderstand.

ight, again, not just the Roman Catholic church. 2 for 2 so far.

Certainly. What's the relevancy though? Does it matter to our discussion which sect is powerful? Does acknowledging that the RC church is powerful have any impact on how you experience the Southern Baptists dealing with your personal religion or lack thereof?

It was an example to counter you bizarre claim that Jesus Christ is the only one who acts on behalf of the Church. It's a bold-faced denial of FACT.

Once more, I agree regarding the Pope's 'power' but again, I don't see how it is relevant to the discussion.
I do (now) understand how Jocabia interprets the references to the 'Church' although why I'm baffled if she isn't RC herself.

He. I wasn't interpreting. GnI are on the same page. It was a specific reference in a general idea. Your comprehension skills are the only thing making this an issue. I have clarified this several times as has GnI.

It is relevant to the discussion because he was referring to the deliberate actions of the Church as an entity at times, which is clearly not only possible but evidenced and you claimed that it was a disjointed group of souls and did not act en masse. I fail to believe that you didn't understand his reference to the 2000-year-old Church and you thought he meant Southern Baptists.

I would challenge you on your defense of her stating he is not the ONLY representatative.

He was at one time, which was the point we were making. We were simply suggesting that the Church at certain times acted deliberately against certain sects, something you denied. The fact that the Pope is not the only representative is not germaine to that point and it certainly is germaine to the fact that at times, the Pope WAS the only representative or at least the lead representative to whom all other representatives had to answer (at least in terms of the organized Church). The fact that we have capitalize the Church in every reference makes it pretty clear what we are referring to.


And

Bolds mine for emphasis.
You do dance masterfully GnI, but regardless of what you think she might have meant, that isn't what she said.
If she wants to hold others accountable for precisely what was said and dissallow for any variance of understanding or to even attempt to understand what was meant, then this gander will have its pound of flesh to badly mix some metaphors.

Ridiculous. You claimed that no one could act on behalf of the Church and I gave you an EXAMPLE of someone who does. Because you removed context doesn't fool anyone paying attention. Like I said, it's clear that you are being dishonest. I retract the benefit of the doubt I gave you earlier. There is no way you didn't read those statements you just quoted in context and missed that I was giving a counter-example to you bizarre reference that no one man can act on behalf of the Church except Jesus. I also mentioned the President of the US. Was I calling the US the Church as well, or are you not willing to go far enough down the path of obfuscation to make that ridiculous claim.

...and rose at Gethsemene.
If one accepts the story.
The flesh of Jesus is gone. His Spirit is here, but no one actually claims the living flesh of Jesus resides in the physical world. Thus by every physical definition, Jesus is dead.

Now for those who are amused when people get caught lying here are the actual quotes.

Allow me to pose a question though, if the leader a major Christian religion seeks military or political domination and uses his power as the head of a Christian religion to do so, is it fair to say that the 'Church' is doing so? Or is the 'Church' the tool by which a man, or men, is/are doing so?
Hmmmm... you just took out the entire idea of the Church. The church chooses to be run by a single person that is propped up by the members of the Church. He was acting as a representative of the Church. Yes it is the Church doing it. According to you America is not in Iraq. It's ludicrous.

Perhaps I took out your idea of the 'Church', mine is still intact.
When I talk about any single person running the 'Church' the only person I would reference would be the carpenter from Nazareth.
What the representative of a particular religion does is not necessarily what I believe the 'Church' is doing.

Okay. Last I checked that carpenter is dead. The Church is an entity that elects a representative to run it. That person acts on behalf of the Church.

It was an example in response to a question he asked me. He tried to present it as something I was talking about all along to make it seem as if I was being inconsistent. He posed that question to illustrate his point, but I don't skewer that question to twist his point up and be dishonest. He has not afforded me the same courtesy.

Notice how both examples are directly just an explanitory reply to a question he posed to me. Except he tries to make it seem like when I was making more general points I was only talking about the Catholic Church. I used the Catholic Church as an example of how it is possible for Church to act under the direction of a man. The Church is a generalized idea spanning millennia but it certainly has at times been run by a single elected person which is the original statement you objected to and also illustrated an answer to a question you designed. Your lies have done nothing to aid your point.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10613037&postcount=232

Notice that GnI was making a generalized point about what the Church does "at times". Inside of that point, using the ancient Catholic Church as an example illustrating his point. Your failure to recognize the difference between the point and illustrations of the point is your failure. Now, your attempts to take quotes out of context and then misrepresent them, well, that's just lying.

Really? Where is He in the flesh? Where is this flesh?

Wow, I thought you were somewhat informed regarding Christianity.
He ascended from Mt. Olive.

The Christian story tells us He is preparing a place for His followers and will return someday.

Most of what I said was based on my presuppositions though. You haven't actually repudiated anything that I said; you have merely told me what your beliefs are.

I'm sorry, would you care to show me where I stated a single belief of mine? Oh wait, I didn't. Sorry. You don't know what I believe.

You seem to think that anything, no matter what it is, is an opinion. This is wrong. 2+2=4 is not an opinion - it is the way math works. The fact that evolutionary theory has nothing to say about the existence or non-existence of God and the fact that evolutionary theory is not based in an acceptance of either stance is simply that - fact. It is the way science works.

If you believe that one could be a secular politician and a religious person in his personal life, that's still a belief, and thus defines a religion in itself.

No, that is a fact. Once again, you are trying to either suggest that anything ever said by any person is an opinion, or you are trying to redefine words. Either is useless to your argument, because you've already made such ridiculous claims.

Christianity holds that the teachings of Jesus should be applied to everything in your life. So if a politician chooses to be secular, that is a religious belief: that Jesus shouldn't be everywhere in your life.

There is nothing about a secular belief that keeps Jesus out of your life. If I believe that it is ok for my friend to be Muslim, that doen't mean that Jesus is in any way out of my life. In fact, Jesus was very clear that we should not force our religious beliefs on others and that the church and state should be separate ("Give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's....")

You are redefining words again. To believe in secular government does not in any way suggest that one wishes to have God or Christ in any way out of their lives - it simply means that they do not wish to force either into someone else's life.

Edit: Missed this:

For example, I believe that evolutionism is based on a nonbelief in God because I reject theistic evolution and because I believe that anything that isn't for God is therefore against God.

I take it that you reject all of science then? You refuse medication? You don't use computers (oh, wait....). What the hell are you doing using the results of an area of study that you must logically reject entirely since it isn't "for God."

Note: Before you try to say this is opinion - sorry honey, this is straight-up fact. Science neither acknowledges the existence of God nor posits the non-existence of God.

No, you didn't. I don't believe that you really don't understand what we mean when we reference the Church and it has constantly been explained to you.


I know exactly what I mean, and now, I know exactly what you mean.
There is no we, because we use the term differently.

Why don't you get that?

Wow, I thought you were somewhat informed regarding Christianity.
He ascended from Mt. Olive.

The Christian story tells us He is preparing a place for His followers and will return someday.

I'm well aware of this. In other words, he is not in the flesh today, now is he? Nope. He's physically dead while living in the spirit.

I know exactly what I mean, and now, I know exactly what you mean.
There is no we, because we use the term differently.

Why don't you get that?
Too bad we are talking about the way GnI and I used the term. How you use it doesn't matter in the least. Our use of the term was clear in context. Your attempts to take them out of context and contend they meant something else prove nothing other than you skipped the lesson on context in reading class.

He.


My apologies, I guess your spamgirl title threw me. I've been referring to you in the feminine for a while now.


The rest of your post is garbage that dissolves when even the most simple fool notices that we have been operating under different definitions from the beginning.

Too bad we are talking about the way GnI and I used the term. How you use it doesn't matter in the least. Our use of the term was clear in context. Your attempts to take them out of context and contend they meant something else prove nothing other than you skipped the lesson on context in reading class.


How stupid are you?
It's not about the bloody context, I read it in context, but you and I use the word differently, so even read in TOTAL context, we will arrive at a different place.

Oddly enough, your constant bitching about it has taken longer than the actual conversation I held and resolved with GnI. I don't recall GnI needing to go through these acrobatics to discuss it and he is the person I was talking to.

How stupid are you?
It's not about the bloody context, I read it in context, but you and I use the word differently, so even read in TOTAL context, we will arrive at a different place.

Oddly enough, your constant bitching about it has taken longer than the actual conversation I held and resolved with GnI. I don't recall GnI needing to go through these acrobatics to discuss it and he is the person I was talking to.
Yes, that's because I did it for him. It is about bloody context. You can't use it your way in the context I used it. Context matters. You can't simply use any form of a word you like even if it makes not sense. More importantly, you had to take my posts out of context to claim I meant something I didn't. The fact that you act like your inability to understand is my fault is laughable. You're right, I'm stupid because I use context when I read. I'm silly like that.

I wish you could explain the technique to just 'cut off' feelings that one 'knows' to be immoral.
Do you believe that works in practice?
Or is that simply a theoretical construct to support the conversation?

I'm trying to imagine what observations might lead you to that assertion, but I can only imagine a few possible exceptions, nothing that would have any prevalence. Perhaps you have examples you could share?

One fashion where I can see the codification leading to obedience without morality would be through peer pressure.
If you're following someone else's codified morals only because your community will punish you for non-compliance, then I see obedience lacking any moral choice.

Come now, I can't be the only person that has ever done it... you don't want to continue down an avenue of thought, so you redirect your thoughts elsewhere, yes?

I doubt it would crumble, but it would have to be vigorously reexamined.

Why would your established morality be changed by that?

Once again, you assume an organized religion. Of course I have accepted morality based on religious authority - that of God. But both my morals and my religion have been, and continue to be, examined by way of reason - concurrently.

What you don't understand is that the two are inextricably intertwined. It isn't that I have morals and make my religion or have religion and make my morals. Both are being constantly reexamined, questioned, and changed to fit knew realizations. And they do so together.

No, I understand that they are interwined, however, your morals are based in your reason, not on doctrine. Your reason has examined reality and come to the conclusion that there is a God. You formed a morality that pointed to the existence of God.

All of our reason and definition is established by the consequence, the effects, so you must know the effect God has upon you before you can actually know God. Therefore, you knew your morality before you knew the source. Morality comes first.

Everyone is religious. Atheists are religious because they believe in atheism. This is because all beliefs are interpretations of facts are based on your presuppositions. So really, an evolutionist is just as religious as a Creationist -- just opposite religions. They both believe in something that they can't necessarily always prove -- Creationism is based on the belief in God, and Evolutionism is based on the belief in no God. Both believe something.

Therefore, it's only a matter of what the actual morals are of each respective religion that separates us.

And the respond to the very earliest posts: I was not forced into any belief in God. I started reading the Bible and believing in Him because I felt in my heart that it was the right thing to do -- I was fed up with secularism. And yes, secularism is a religion... that believes that any religion other than secularism should not be publically practiced.

How does an Atheist 'believe' in atheism?

As an Atheist myself... of the Implicit variety, I have no strong feelings either way. I am willing to believe in a god, if I can ever find some evidence. I am willing to believe god is impossible, if I can ever find some evidence.

It isn't a 'belief' I have... it's a LACK of beliefs.

Second point... in this very thread we have Christians that accept evolution as a realistic mechanism. And yet - you set the two up as extremes and opposites.

Third point - the difference between what you call 'evolutionists' and Christian Creationists (they are not the ONLY creationists, you know)... is the evidence. Evolution, as a theory, is constructed from direct observation of (what are believed to be) evolutionary stages, compounded with historical evidence that seems to support evolutionary stages as a continuing trend.

Christian Creationism, on the other hand, is based on one book... written a long time ago. There IS no parallel.

Fourth point - you might want to look into the definition of secular. Your misuse of it is pretty extreme.


So... thanks, I guess. You haven't really responded to ANY of the main topics of the thread, and you have acheived that with a post filled with unsubstantiated claims, and hollow rhetoric - most of which is transparently false to even the most casual of glances.

So your claim is that your parents CANNOT affect your morality, huh?

Don't utter blatant strawmans.

Your parents can affect your morality, I am just saying that if you take the morality of your parents as the truth without rational examination you are not being moral. You are at best negligent, maybe malicious.

I love that you admit that morality comes from experience, then you redefine experience to not include religion and then act like you proved something. Ever heard of circular logic. Either experiences affect your morality or they don't. Religious experiences, including your interaction with other religious people, your explorations of your religion and the teachings of that religion are ALL part of your experience and all affect your morality.


Can a religious experience be passed from one person to another? If I told you that I had a spiritual awakening while watching a Tom Jones concert, could you possibly understand or take my word to be truth?

I would also argue a person's ability to accept a perception of a religious experience as truth, but I didn't want to propose an epistemological argument that may be insulting to those in here who are religious.

But the simple fact is that religious experiences cannot be shared, they are entirely personal, and outside confirmation is required to establish truth.

Even if one accepts a religious experience as truth, it is formed into a personal morality before it is formed into religion, as like I told Dempublicents, one must understand the meaning before understanding the origin.

So there is a qualifying difference between natural experience and religious experience.

So, not just the Roman Catholic church then. Good, I didn't misunderstand.

Right, again, not just the Roman Catholic church. 2 for 2 so far.

Certainly. What's the relevancy though? Does it matter to our discussion which sect is powerful? Does acknowledging that the RC church is powerful have any impact on how you experience the Southern Baptists dealing with your personal religion or lack thereof?

Once more, I agree regarding the Pope's 'power' but again, I don't see how it is relevant to the discussion.
I do (now) understand how Jocabia interprets the references to the 'Church' although why I'm baffled if she isn't RC herself.

I would challenge you on your defense of her stating he is not the ONLY representatative.

And

Bolds mine for emphasis.
You do dance masterfully GnI, but regardless of what you think she might have meant, that isn't what she said.
If she wants to hold others accountable for precisely what was said and dissallow for any variance of understanding or to even attempt to understand what was meant, then this gander will have its pound of flesh to badly mix some metaphors.

...and rose at Gethsemene.
If one accepts the story.

I like the mixed metaphor-weilding cannibal goose.

The point of papal politics in the whole issue is... that Christianity is collectively 'led' to a great extent, by the Pope. Yes - his 'sect' is the Catholic faith... but his influence extends further, even though many Christian sects may CLAIM to distance themselves.

Ultimately, of course, since we are talking about something both current AND historical, we have to allow for the fact that Popes have been a dominant force throughout... sometimes FAR more of an influence than they are, even now.

And, if we go back far enough, we find ourselves at Nicaea... and the roots of this 'centralised' faith idea... effectively 'centring' Christianity on papal politics.

Regarding the death at Calvary, and the resurrection... even if one accepts the story as true - one MUST see that it is inconsistent to read the resurrected Jesus as the SAME flesh that died.

Thomas places his hands inside a mortal wound on the body of Christ. That's a key moment. It illustrates the resurrection. It proves divinity.

But, it also shows that the body is NOT 'just' a mundane body.

What rises in Gethsemene is NOT the 'same' as what falls at Calvary...

How does an Atheist 'believe' in atheism?

As an Atheist myself... of the Implicit variety, I have no strong feelings either way. I am willing to believe in a god, if I can ever find some evidence. I am willing to believe god is impossible, if I can ever find some evidence.

It isn't a 'belief' I have... it's a LACK of beliefs.

Second point... in this very thread we have Christians that accept evolution as a realistic mechanism. And yet - you set the two up as extremes and opposites.

Third point - the difference between what you call 'evolutionists' and Christian Creationists (they are not the ONLY creationists, you know)... is the evidence. Evolution, as a theory, is constructed from direct observation of (what are believed to be) evolutionary stages, compounded with historical evidence that seems to support evolutionary stages as a continuing trend.

Christian Creationism, on the other hand, is based on one book... written a long time ago. There IS no parallel.

Fourth point - you might want to look into the definition of secular. Your misuse of it is pretty extreme.


So... thanks, I guess. You haven't really responded to ANY of the main topics of the thread, and you have acheived that with a post filled with unsubstantiated claims, and hollow rhetoric - most of which is transparently false to even the most casual of glances.
I wasn't trying to make points about secularism, atheism, or anything else. I was using theoretical examples based upon my own presuppositions to establish that since we all have our own way of living (which is really part of what religion is), it is perfectly possible to be moral and religious. I consider religion to be the formal belief in a way of life -- which may or may not contradict your definition. But that's irrelevant; I'm just answering the question posed as the title of the thread.

Definition of secularism: "The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education." If your religion holds that you must never exclude it from anything, then you are contradicting your own religion, thus forming your own religion of secularism by still claiming to be religious.

Example: John Roberts of the Supreme Court. SUPPOSEDLY pro-life Roman Catholic, yet he said that his personal view will not affect his rulings. This is secularism, and I see it as a religion separate from Catholicism.

Understand that I am an extremist, so of course I expect my points to be hard to grasp since my presuppositions are considered extreme in such a liberal/immoral society as modern-day America.

Wow, I thought you were somewhat informed regarding Christianity.
He ascended from Mt. Olive.

The Christian story tells us He is preparing a place for His followers and will return someday.

Where is this place he is preparing?

Is it in the 'mundane' world?

What sort of bodies do you believe will be worn by the 'saints' in this prepared world?

I wasn't trying to make points about secularism, atheism, or anything else. I was using theoretical examples based upon my own presuppositions to establish that since we all have our own way of living (which is really part of what religion is), it is perfectly possible to be moral and religious. I consider religion to be the formal belief in a way of life -- which may or may not contradict your definition. But that's irrelevant; I'm just answering the question posed as the title of the thread.

Definition of secularism: "The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education." If your religion holds that you must never exclude it from anything, then you are contradicting your own religion, thus forming your own religion of secularism by still claiming to be religious.

Example: John Roberts of the Supreme Court. SUPPOSEDLY pro-life Roman Catholic, yet he said that his personal view will not affect his rulings. This is secularism, and I see it as a religion separate from Catholicism.

Understand that I am an extremist, so of course I expect my points to be hard to grasp since my presuppositions are considered extreme in such a liberal/immoral society as modern-day America.

There's nothing hard to grasp about your points. They are simple... and simply false.

First - let me address your use of the word 'secularism'.

The common usage of the word (NOT a dictionary definition) actually paints secular as simply 'not about' religion. So - if you have two alternatives to choose, you do not pick the religious one because of it's religious nature. You MIGHT still follow that course... but 'religion' will not be your deciding factor.

Second - let us look at what the dictionary says about 'secularism'.

I just picked up the first online source I found - and it DOES allow for the definition you represent... but it is a SECONDARY definition... which makes me suspect you motives in picking it... maybe you ONLY wanted to represent definitions that suit your agenda?

The FIRST definition given (I'm looking at the Yahoo! Education dictionary) is: "Religious skepticism or indifference"... and I think that is the important definition... and matches not ONLY the common usage, but also gives a fairly accurate representation of what secularism 'is'.

Secularism isn't anti-religion - it is just not PREFERENTIAL.

Regarding John Roberts... I have my doubts that he will be anything like as 'secular' as you seem to believe, but that is beside the point. John Roberts has a religion, he also has a job. His job is NOT his religion... even though he is not 'allowed' to practise parts of his religion IN his job. His 'job' actually somewhat requires him to be above issues of his race, his political party, and his gender also... and yet he remains 'a member' of each of those catchments, too.

I'm sorry, would you care to show me where I stated a single belief of mine? Oh wait, I didn't. Sorry. You don't know what I believe.

You seem to think that anything, no matter what it is, is an opinion. This is wrong. 2+2=4 is not an opinion - it is the way science works. The fact that evolutionary theory has nothing to say about the existence or non-existence of God and the fact that evolutionary theory is not based in an acceptance of either stance is simply that - fact.



No, that is a fact. Once again, you are trying to either suggest that anything ever said by any person is an opinion, or you are trying to redefine words. Either is useless to your argument, because you've already made such ridiculous claims.



There is nothing about a secular belief that keeps Jesus out of your life. If I believe that it is ok for my friend to be Muslim, that doen't mean that Jesus is in any way out of my life. In fact, Jesus was very clear that we should not force our religious beliefs on others and that the church and state should be separate ("Give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's....")

You are redefining words again. To believe in secular government does not in any way suggest that one wishes to have God or Christ in any way out of their lives - it simply means that they do not wish to force either into someone else's life.

Edit: Missed this:



I take it that you reject all of science then? You refuse medication? You don't use computers (oh, wait....). What the hell are you doing using the results of an area of study that you must logically reject entirely since it isn't "for God."

Note: Before you try to say this is opinion - sorry honey, this is straight-up fact. Science neither acknowledges the existence of God nor posits the non-existence of God.
In your opinion, yes. In mine, no.

"2+2=4" is a statement. If you believe that it is correct, that is your opinion. Facts are simply opinions that are extremely well-supported. But such support is philosophically only based upon interpretation/perception. If I count two fingers plus two fingers equals four fingers, that is my perception from my eyes alone. What if I am blind (other than feeling around or whatever).

The same concept applies elsewhere. All facts are based upon opinions, which are based upon flawed human perceptions/interpretations, that are so extremely obvious that we've decided as humans to call them fact just to make life easier and less annoyingly-philosophical. I am, I admit, annoyingly philosophical in my precision to explain myself.

So what you said is true for normal people who just don't care about silly philosophy discussions -- but I like philosophy.

And to make this post relevant, I shall tell of my own personal experience to answer the question which is posed as the title of this thread ("Is it possible to be moral AND religious?"). I started out as an atheist; then my best friend did something terribly wrong with someone who seduced him; then I met the girl and saw how immoral she was. And she's mean too. This repudiated my opinion that liberals were nice people. But here's the point: I had always been moral, whether religious or not. She sweared a lot and said generally "not-nice" things. So I just became a conservative Christian and am now content with being both moral and religious. I decided through logic and reasoning that a blief in God is necessary to free my mind. Yes, it's possible to be moral and religious.

Don't utter blatant strawmans.

Your parents can affect your morality, I am just saying that if you take the morality of your parents as the truth without rational examination you are not being moral. You are at best negligent, maybe malicious.

I wasn't saying you actually said that. It was a question (notice the question mark). I was extrapolating. And I was right, you agree that parents can affect your morality.

So you can learn about morality from others and still be moral (or at least you said clearly that others can affect morality. I'm extrapolating again). Good to know. So why is the effect of Christ different than the effect of my parents?

Can a religious experience be passed from one person to another? If I told you that I had a spiritual awakening while watching a Tom Jones concert, could you possibly understand or take my word to be truth?

All experiences can be shared, not passed. I certainly could understand and believe you. Why couldn't I?

I would also argue a person's ability to accept a perception of a religious experience as truth, but I didn't want to propose an epistemological argument that may be insulting to those in here who are religious.

Who cares if they perceive it as truth or not? Who cares if they're right? It's not germaine. They can perceive it, analyze it and act after drinking in that experience.

But the simple fact is that religious experiences cannot be shared, they are entirely personal, and outside confirmation is required to establish truth.

Wrong. They can be, just like any lesson or story. I can't share my religious experience with people? Why? Because you DECLARED it to be. You didn't even offer logical evidence of the assertion. Truth is not important to learn from a story I share with another. There is no absolute truth and objective truth is not required. In order for us to learn there is only a requirement for subjective truth and sometimes a simple confidence in the person is enough evidence for us. That's why we can learn from our parents experiences at times. When I got older I started working on electronics with my father. If he told me how a capacitor worked, he didn't have to prove it to me. I trusted him so whether it was objectively true, it was subjectively true to me, so I learned form it. Likewise, when my grandfather told me stories about teaching he didn't have to prove he was telling the truth, I trusted him.

Even if one accepts a religious experience as truth, it is formed into a personal morality before it is formed into religion, as like I told Dempublicents, one must understand the meaning before understanding the origin.

According to you. I love how you declare these 'truths' and then claim that it means you're right. Are you seriously trying to claim that no one examines something for religious truth BEFORE incorporating it into their morality? Certainly it CAN work the way you claim. No one is denying that nor have we ever, but it is not the ONLY way it can work.

So there is a qualifying difference between natural experience and religious experience.

Why? Because you say so. You keep making these assertions. This entire post is unsupported assertion. I most certainly can accept something as truth without evidence. I most certainly can learn from an experience my parents or friends had. I most certainly can share my experiences with others, and do. Literally thousands of people have learned from my experiences and thus shared in them. Some people will incorporate those experiences into their private moralities, just as I incorporated some of my religious experiences into my morality. Prove I didn't. You haven't yet. In fact, unless I accept your declarations as true, you can't even get past the first step.

In your opinion, yes. In mine, no.

"2+2=4" is a statement. If you believe that it is correct, that is your opinion. Facts are simply opinions that are extremely well-supported. But such support is philosophically only based upon interpretation/perception. If I count two fingers plus two fingers equals four fingers, that is my perception from my eyes alone. What if I am blind (other than feeling around or whatever).

The same concept applies elsewhere. All facts are based upon opinions, which are based upon flawed human perceptions/interpretations, that are so extremely obvious that we've decided as humans to call them fact just to make life easier and less annoyingly-philosophical. I am, I admit, annoyingly philosophical in my precision to explain myself.

So what you said is true for normal people who just don't care about silly philosophy discussions -- but I like philosophy.

And to make this post relevant, I shall tell of my own personal experience to answer the question which is posed as the title of this thread ("Is it possible to be moral AND religious?"). I started out as an atheist; then my best friend did something terribly wrong with someone who seduced him; then I met the girl and saw how immoral she was. And she's mean too. This repudiated my opinion that liberals were nice people. But here's the point: I had always been moral, whether religious or not. She sweared a lot and said generally "not-nice" things. So I just became a conservative Christian and am now content with being both moral and religious. I decided through logic and reasoning that a blief in God is necessary to free my mind. Yes, it's possible to be moral and religious.

Ha. You use poor example. The value of numbers is not an opinion. It's a defined truism. 2 + 2 = 4 because we declared that our number system works that way. It's not an opinion. Saying otherwise is like saying it's only my opinion that my name is Eric.

In your opinion, yes. In mine, no.

"2+2=4" is a statement. If you believe that it is correct, that is your opinion. Facts are simply opinions that are extremely well-supported. But such support is philosophically only based upon interpretation/perception. If I count two fingers plus two fingers equals four fingers, that is my perception from my eyes alone. What if I am blind (other than feeling around or whatever).

Sorry buddy, by its very definition 2 when added to itself will equal 4. That is a fact. Maybe you can argue which word or symbol should be used to represent the concept, but you cannot debate that 2+2=4.

It is also a fact that the conclusions put forth by the theory of evolution do not, in anyway conflict with the idea of God. The very nature of God states that no natural concept or creation can conflict with it.

She sweared a lot and said generally "not-nice" things. So I just became a conservative Christian and am now content with being both moral and religious. I decided through logic and reasoning that a blief in God is necessary to free my mind. Yes, it's possible to be moral and religious.

You are philosophically debating the notion of truth, and you found your religious belief through your experience with one other individual?

It seems that someone so desperate to disprove 2+2=4 would have much higher standards for religious belief.

There's nothing hard to grasp about your points. They are simple... and simply false.

First - let me address your use of the word 'secularism'.

The common usage of the word (NOT a dictionary definition) actually paints secular as simply 'not about' religion. So - if you have two alternatives to choose, you do not pick the religious one because of it's religious nature. You MIGHT still follow that course... but 'religion' will not be your deciding factor.

Second - let us look at what the dictionary says about 'secularism'.

I just picked up the first online source I found - and it DOES allow for the definition you represent... but it is a SECONDARY definition... which makes me suspect you motives in picking it... maybe you ONLY wanted to represent definitions that suit your agenda?

The FIRST definition given (I'm looking at the Yahoo! Education dictionary) is: "Religious skepticism or indifference"... and I think that is the important definition... and matches not ONLY the common usage, but also gives a fairly accurate representation of what secularism 'is'.

Secularism isn't anti-religion - it is just not PREFERENTIAL.

Regarding John Roberts... I have my doubts that he will be anything like as 'secular' as you seem to believe, but that is beside the point. John Roberts has a religion, he also has a job. His job is NOT his religion... even though he is not 'allowed' to practise parts of his religion IN his job. His 'job' actually somewhat requires him to be above issues of his race, his political party, and his gender also... and yet he remains 'a member' of each of those catchments, too.
Is the repeated use of capitalized words necessary? My 8th grade English teacher taught me not to use them in persuasive pieces.

The Yahoo/Dictionary.com definitions that you and I used aren't exactly authoratative. Librarians don't recommend it. Merriam-Webster is the authority on words, and the definition of secularism is as follows: "indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations"
And the original 1828 Webster definitions of secular (it doesn't list "secularism"): "1. Pertaining to the present world, or to things not spiritual or holy; relating to things not immediately or primarily respecting the soul, but the body; worldly. The secular concerns of life respect making making provision for the support of life, the preservation of health, the temporal prosperity of men, of states, etc. Secular power is that which superintends and governs the temporal affairs of men, the civil or political power; and is contradistinguished from spiritual or ecclsiastical power. 2. Among catholics, not regular; not bound by monastic vows or rules; not confines to a monastery or subject to the rules of a religious community. Thus we say, the secular clergy and the regular clergy."

Blah, blah, who cares about the dictionary definition of secular anyway? I'm talking about my perception of what secularism has become from my Christian worldview. The actual definition or meaning is irrelevant. Secularism is evil according to the Bible. A government that fails to acknowledge the sovereignty of God is predestined to failure.

This forum is way too liberal, and I have a English research project to start... seeya later.

You are philosophically debating the notion of truth, and you found your religious belief through your experience with one other individual?

It seems that someone so desperate to disprove 2+2=4 would have much higher standards for religious belief.
Just real quicky... Come on, do you actually think I wanted to disprove 2+2=4? Do you think my intelligence is less than that of a monkey?

I found my religious belief through many people, but I am forbidden to defame my parents. I was also convinced by the Scripture and advocates of it.

Is the repeated use of capitalized words necessary? My 8th grade English teacher taught me not to use them in persuasive pieces.

The Yahoo/Dictionary.com definitions that you and I used aren't exactly authoratative. Librarians don't recommend it. Merriam-Webster is the authority on words, and the definition of secularism is as follows: "indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations"
And the original 1828 Webster definitions of secular (it doesn't list "secularism"): "1. Pertaining to the present world, or to things not spiritual or holy; relating to things not immediately or primarily respecting the soul, but the body; worldly. The secular concerns of life respect making making provision for the support of life, the preservation of health, the temporal prosperity of men, of states, etc. Secular power is that which superintends and governs the temporal affairs of men, the civil or political power; and is contradistinguished from spiritual or ecclsiastical power. 2. Among catholics, not regular; not bound by monastic vows or rules; not confines to a monastery or subject to the rules of a religious community. Thus we say, the secular clergy and the regular clergy."

Blah, blah, who cares about the dictionary definition of secular anyway? I'm talking about my perception of what secularism has become from my Christian worldview. The actual definition or meaning is irrelevant. Secularism is evil according to the Bible. A government that fails to acknowledge the sovereignty of God is predestined to failure.

This forum is way too liberal, and I have a English research project to start... seeya later.

First - I am not the forum. If you find my opinions too liberal, then you have to deal with me. I don't even PRETEND to represent the consensus.

Second - The reason I use capitalisation is that I usually write reasonably lengthy replies. It takes a lot less time to hit caps-lock, than it does to place the 'italic' tags around a phrase. If I were writing serious discussion pieces that were expected to be refered to later, I'd use more formal style.

I wonder why you are picking at this? Is it because your argument has been shown to be veil-thin?

Third - You raised the issue of definition of 'secularism'. Not I. It seems that it has come back around to bite you in the ass. I'd say that's a shame for YOUR argument... but it is neither my fault, my issue... nor my cause of sorrow.

Fourth point - if you believe secularism is evil 'according to the Bible'... you have, perhaps, not the grasp on scripture you believe you have. Jesus haad no problems with secular government, and, indeed, ENCOURAGES the Christian to subject himself/herself TO secular government.

Is the repeated use of capitalized words necessary? My 8th grade English teacher taught me not to use them in persuasive pieces.

That may have been true in aught-four but in aught-6 we do that to emphasize words like we do in speech. Sometimes we us italics as well, but that takes html and a lot of us are lazy.

The Yahoo/Dictionary.com definitions that you and I used aren't exactly authoratative. Librarians don't recommend it. Merriam-Webster is the authority on words, and the definition of secularism is as follows: "indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations"

John Roberts doesn't fit any of those descriptions. He simply keeps religion and religious considerations seperate from his work, or should. He treats a court of law as secular and no, SECULAR does not mean the same as secularism does to MW.

And the original 1828 Webster definitions of secular (it doesn't list "secularism"): "1. Pertaining to the present world, or to things not spiritual or holy; relating to things not immediately or primarily respecting the soul, but the body; worldly. The secular concerns of life respect making making provision for the support of life, the preservation of health, the temporal prosperity of men, of states, etc. Secular power is that which superintends and governs the temporal affairs of men, the civil or political power; and is contradistinguished from spiritual or ecclsiastical power. 2. Among catholics, not regular; not bound by monastic vows or rules; not confines to a monastery or subject to the rules of a religious community. Thus we say, the secular clergy and the regular clergy."

Blah, blah, who cares about the dictionary definition of secular anyway? I'm talking about my perception of what secularism has become from my Christian worldview. The actual definition or meaning is irrelevant. Secularism is evil according to the Bible. A government that fails to acknowledge the sovereignty of God is predestined to failure.

Quote the Bible. Where is it evil to be secular? Jesus seemed to believe we should render unto Ceasar... Was He wrong?

Where did Jesus say that? I believe he said ALL government are predestined to fail. A little disingenuous to single out secular governments.

This forum is way too liberal, and I have a English research project to start... seeya later.
Ha. You mean we believe in religious freedom. What amuses me is that the Atheist you argue with follows the teachings of Jesus more closely than you do. You know, do not judge, the lessons of pride, the plank in your own eye, stuff like that. It's amazing how important it is to some Christians to tell people all of the lessons of Christ that makes them feel superior but they always miss the lessons that say they're not supposed to do that.

So you can learn about morality from others and still be moral (or at least you said clearly that others can affect morality. I'm extrapolating again). Good to know. So why is the effect of Christ different than the effect of my parents?

You can learn about morality, but you cannot learn morality from others. I can listen to a preacher speak, but it is all just words until I rationally examine their worth.

Is that last question rhetorical? It seems a little silly to me.

All experiences can be shared, not passed. I certainly could understand and believe you. Why couldn't I?

You could understand the process that brought me to my spiritual awakening? You could understand God's purpose and desire in contacting me?

And I asked if you could take my word to be truth, not whether you could believe me. I could loan a friend $20 bucks and believe he will pay me back, but that doesn't establish it as truth.

Who cares if they perceive it as truth or not? Who cares if they're right? It's not germaine. They can perceive it, analyze it and act after drinking in that experience.

I am just saying that it would be callous for someone to base their morality on a religious experience as they cannot know if their perception is correct. A certain degree of truth is required for forming a morality.

I would certainly be negligent in my morality if I believed my dog was God and was ordering me to kill people.

Wrong. They can be, just like any lesson or story. I can't share my religious experience with people? Why? Because you DECLARED it to be. You didn't even offer logical evidence of the assertion. Truth is not important to learn from a story I share with another. There is no absolute truth and objective truth is not required. In order for us to learn there is only a requirement for subjective truth and sometimes a simple confidence in the person is enough evidence for us. That's why we can learn from our parents experiences at times. When I got older I started working on electronics with my father. If he told me how a capacitor worked, he didn't have to prove it to me. I trusted him so whether it was objectively true, it was subjectively true to me, so I learned form it. Likewise, when my grandfather told me stories about teaching he didn't have to prove he was telling the truth, I trusted him.

1.
They simply cannot experience the religion of another, any more than they can experience the motivations of another.

Just so you know I am not the only one who DECLARED it to be.

2. We are not referring to natural processes that can be confirmed. Your uncle can know the objective truth about engines. Your preacher cannot know the objective truth about religion.

3. I am not saying that truth is needed in the slightest to experience a story. I am only saying that it is needed to form a valid morality. You cannot form a morality on falsehoods, so one must take the reasonable steps to confirm truth. One cannot do that when examining the religious experience of another.

According to you. I love how you declare these 'truths' and then claim that it means you're right. Are you seriously trying to claim that no one examines something for religious truth BEFORE incorporating it into their morality? Certainly it CAN work the way you claim. No one is denying that nor have we ever, but it is not the ONLY way it can work.

Yes, I am saying that. For a person to be moral, he examines a concept for moral truth before accepting it as religious truth, as a moral person would not accept a religious tenet if he did not first find it to be a moral tenet.

Why? Because you say so. You keep making these assertions. This entire post is unsupported assertion.

You have got to be kidding me.

There is a qualifying difference because:

A.But the simple fact is that religious experiences cannot be shared, they are entirely personal, and outside confirmation is required to establish truth.

You addressed neither of these supporting statements, so answer now:

Can one person confirm that another person's experience was religious in nature?

Is outside confirmation necessary for substantial evidence of truth?

B. Can a religious experience be passed from one person to another? If I told you that I had a spiritual awakening while watching a Tom Jones concert, could you possibly understand or take my word to be truth?

These were asked as rhetorical questions, as I thought they would display a given. Since you disagreed, perhaps you can show me how one person can verify another's religious experience.

I most certainly can accept something as truth without evidence.

Then you are a fool, and I'd like to sell you a perpetual motion machine.

Prove I didn't. You haven't yet. In fact, unless I accept your declarations as true, you can't even get past the first step.

I cannot prove what you have or haven't learned from your religious experiences.

However, I have stated why I feel you cannot trust the religious experiences of others, nor can you trust your own religious experiences.

Just real quicky... Come on, do you actually think I wanted to disprove 2+2=4? Do you think my intelligence is less than that of a monkey?

Well you were attempting to show that it wasn't fact, I guess there is a slight difference.

I found my religious belief through many people, but I am forbidden to defame my parents. I was also convinced by the Scripture and advocates of it.

Were there any personal experiences between you and a "maker"?

You can learn about morality, but you cannot learn morality from others. I can listen to a preacher speak, but it is all just words until I rationally examine their worth.

Is that last question rhetorical? It seems a little silly to me.

The point is that it can affect your morality. You already accepted my point. My original claim is that they do not have to be independent, religion and morality. You claimed they do. You admit that others can affect my morality. You're going to have to show me how religious lessons are fundamentally different with something other that you said so. You admit that parents can affect the morality of their children. You can learn about morality from others. Christ was an 'other'. I believe we're done here. It's not really necessary to argue about the rest of your false assertions.

I am curious why you think objective truth has anything to do with morality? In fact why is objective truth necessary to learn from someone else? If I am trusting the veracity of the claims of another then why does it matter if what they say is objectively true or subjectively true?

The point is that it can affect your morality. You already accepted my point. My original claim is that they do not have to be independent, religion and morality. You claimed they do. You admit that others can affect my morality. You're going to have to show me how religious lessons are fundamentally different with something other that you said so. You admit that parents can affect the morality of their children. You can learn about morality from others. Christ was an 'other'. I believe we're done here. It's not really necessary to argue about the rest of your false assertions.

You either aren't reading my posts, or you are reading words but not putting them together.

Now, the original point of the thread was this: Can a person be moral if he accepts religious morals simply on the word of others? I have furthered the argument to state that religion is a product of morals, and that true morality is completely independent from religion in its creation. Religion and morality are not mutually exclusive, but the foundation of a valid morality must be in place before a religious code can be moral.

Let us begin by stating that having a morality and being moral are different concepts. At no point did I say that one could not pull his morality from a religious code, I only stated that it would not be a valid morality and he would not be moral in doing so.

Furthermore, one must either judge morals for oneself or be amoral at best. Morals can only be judged by applying one's reason to one's experience. If a person accepts the morals of another as his own, then he is not truly finding a moral code and is disingenious to the concept of morality.

Now, one's reason is a given, it is those faculties which a person possesses by simply having awareness.

Experience, on the other hand, needs a reasonable level of truth to be accepted. As the second hand relation of religious experience cannot be verified whatsoever by the listener, he could not possibly accept it as truth. While he may think that the person telling the story is not lying, but he cannot trust the storyteller's perception. In the same vein, a person who has a religious experience cannot have his perception of the experience confirmed as well. So while a person may be able to draw his own conclusions about the existence of a supreme being, the source of his morality, even the source of his own existence, but he cannot use the experience to define his morality. To sum it up, one cannot use experience that only he/she can perceive as the basis for their treatment of other people.

I am curious why you think objective truth has anything to do with morality? In fact why is objective truth necessary to learn from someone else? If I am trusting the veracity of the claims of another then why does it matter if what they say is objectively true or subjectively true?

Because morality has a certain universal nature. One cannot take their own personal experience and use it to define what is the a just way to treat others.

I'm well aware of this. In other words, he is not in the flesh today, now is he? Nope. He's physically dead while living in the spirit.

So, you believe Christ died a second time then? He ascended to Heaven, died, and became a living spirit?

Yes, that's because I did it for him. It is about bloody context. You can't use it your way in the context I used it. Context matters. You can't simply use any form of a word you like even if it makes not sense. More importantly, you had to take my posts out of context to claim I meant something I didn't. The fact that you act like your inability to understand is my fault is laughable. You're right, I'm stupid because I use context when I read. I'm silly like that.

You do his bitching for him?
You are an odd person.

Context matters, but it is irrelevant now. I can read the initial discussion with either my usage of the term or yours. Both actually work in the context.
The problem only arose when we challenged each other's usage based on our own usage.
I did not take you out of context, but I did initially believe that you used the term the same way I did, which made your posts looney, and it appears that you did the same.

Come now, I can't be the only person that has ever done it... you don't want to continue down an avenue of thought, so you redirect your thoughts elsewhere, yes?


I can't say I've ever found it that easy.
At least not with any moral issue that would tempt me in the slightest.
Avenues of thought that hold no appeal to me, sure, but that doesn't seem to be a moral choice nor have anything to do with codified morals.

The point of papal politics in the whole issue is... that Christianity is collectively 'led' to a great extent, by the Pope. Yes - his 'sect' is the Catholic faith... but his influence extends further, even though many Christian sects may CLAIM to distance themselves.


Is collectively led? I would disagree. Was collectively led, sure.
I don't see the same influence extending that you do, perhaps I've known too many Christians that actively believed that the Pope would in fact be the Anti-Christ John speaks of.


Regarding the death at Calvary, and the resurrection... even if one accepts the story as true - one MUST see that it is inconsistent to read the resurrected Jesus as the SAME flesh that died.

Thomas places his hands inside a mortal wound on the body of Christ. That's a key moment. It illustrates the resurrection. It proves divinity.

But, it also shows that the body is NOT 'just' a mundane body.

What rises in Gethsemene is NOT the 'same' as what falls at Calvary...

Given that it is a resurrected body, I can accept your assertion that it is not just mundane. That seems to be a given.
But, the point of the Thomas bit is to prove that He is the same man that fell at Calvary, so I don't see the inconsistecy you say one must see.

GnI, a question: Would you also argue that non-religious moral philosophies invoking an externally determined morality (for example, Platonism) don't allow their adherents to be truly moral?

Where is this place he is preparing?

Unknown, but it was implied that it may be where ever God's kingdom is, anything more is just speculation.

Is it in the 'mundane' world?

Doesn't appear to be, we certainly haven't found it in our mundane world. The most common understanding puts it in a Heaven accesible during the afterlife.
I'm not entirely sold on that one line of thought though.

What sort of bodies do you believe will be worn by the 'saints' in this prepared world?

Are you specifically asking me to speculate? Because I'll decline, it's a pointless exercise.
We were told that our minds can't quite grasp what exactly the afterlife is like, but we are given many illustrations, many of which have been taken literally and I personally don't believe any of them were meant to be literal.

You either aren't reading my posts, or you are reading words but not putting them together.

*snip*

Because morality has a certain universal nature. One cannot take their own personal experience and use it to define what is the a just way to treat others.

Ha. This is really sad. Stop being so stubborn and simply concede the point.

How about we see if you're reading your posts?

Morality comes from experience, and experience comes from actions.

So morality comes from experience but not personal experience according you. What kind of experience are we talking about? Second-hand or third-hand experience?

Now, one might assume you're going to say interpersonal experiences but you're said repeatedly that we can't experience other people's feelings and experiences, etc.

Seriously, let's stop being silly here. My original point is that we learn from experiences and religious experiences exist and they can and sometimes do affect our morality. They are not necessarily independent as you claim. You're run around in circles and done anything to discount the lessons of religion. The squirming is making you look silly.

"You learn morality from experience and experience is from actions only."
A little bit later -
"You cannot learn morality from personal experience."
And somewhere in the middle you declared -
"Morality was already determined in order to examine the morality of lessons."

You're squirming and it's disappointing. Simply man up and admit you're arguing a ridiculous point. I've been nailing you to the wall on this point for three days. I'm start to feel a little like a bully.

By the by, just to drive this home -
The only possible way to be moral is to reasonably assess the cost I have only said that, in that situation, the code enters into a person's morality because it meshes with how he perceives the world. Someone forms their morality through their interpretation of how the world works, religion is coincedental.

One wonders how a statement like "how a person perceives the world" and "a person's interpretation of how the world works" does not refer to personal experience, but I suppose you're going to try and find a way to squirm out of this one as well.

So, you believe Christ died a second time then? He ascended to Heaven, died, and became a living spirit?

I believe ascended. He didn't die in the way we normally use, but he is certainly dead in the flesh. He was always a living spirit, just as you are. He no longer has living flesh.

I believe ascended. He didn't die in the way we normally use, but he is certainly dead in the flesh. He was always a living spirit, just as you are. He no longer has living flesh.


Certainly dead in the flesh?
What do you base this certainty on?

Certainly dead in the flesh?
What do you base this certainty on?

Is the flesh physically living? Nope. Heaven is not a physical place. He ascended to heaven. To claim there is any scripture to support that Jesus is currently living in the flesh is disingenuous at base.

Not spiritually dead, physically dead. And you really should read the context of the statement. I was talking about the actions of the leaders of the Church and it was suggested that is not the actions of the Church and that the only actions of the Church are actions of the Carpenter. Now Jesus may be spiritually alive, but he's not actively guiding the Church by any means. Unless you would honestly suggest that Jesus was responsible for the Crusades and burning people at the stake and whatnot.

Not even physically dead. That was the point of the resurrection. He actually ate fish with his disciples, let them touch his scars, cooked fish on the beach. The scriptures are clear in maintaining that Christ is alive, and is neither dead physically or spiritually. He apparently told Peter that He was going to build his church, and the gates of Hell will not prevail, etc. Jocabia, you have it wrong. Christ IS the head of the church, according to the scriptures. And any church leader that was not following His guidance and was not leading out of God's interests was a false leader. Hence that is a likely explanation for all those Inquisition and Crusade leaders, in my view. Leaders that were not following Christ.

The writer of Hebrews points out that Christ, the man, is sitting on the throne in Heaven on the right hand of God. The living Christ, Jocabia, in His resurrected body. Only as such can He as the High Priest interceed for humanity. Do you believe it?


No. He doesn't. You need to read back further. He was saying that if you simply obey those laws then you are not moral. If you continue to consider right and wrong and morality then following those laws is moral if you consider them so.

Ok, in that case, I agree. If one has blind obedience, without consideration of the alternatives to obedience, then obviously, there is no choice there. But, really, have you met anyone like that? I don't think anyone could be in that position. Humans are too intelligent for that, surely. Anyway, it wouldn't be obedience, which implies choice, but more like a computer performing operations according to a program.


You are making his point. We have been saying all along that what defines morality is the consideration not the action. A dog can do the right thing if I make him fearful enough of not doing so. What has been continually repeated is that with or without the code of moral laws, it's the consideration that determines morality, not adhering to those laws in the interest of avoiding punishment, or reaping awards.

OK, intelligent point made. However, simply because there are rewards at stake does not mean that there is no morality involved. Indeed, we are quite intelligent enough to realize that we shall never be free of reward, in some form or another, regardless of what we choose. So your point is only a theoretical one, and cannot be used to argue that only non-religious people can have morality (because they also are not free of a reward).


Context is very important here and you should have read back further.

Obviously. But it is such a long thread.


Jocabia is hereby nominated to post my responses, if I happen to be away for a while.

As some point you two chaps have to disagree, you know. It isn't all that logical that an atheist and a christian should agree on virtually everything. One of you is compromising, perhaps?

Is collectively led? I would disagree. Was collectively led, sure.
I don't see the same influence extending that you do, perhaps I've known too many Christians that actively believed that the Pope would in fact be the Anti-Christ John speaks of.


I still think the body of the church IS collectively led to an extent, by the papacy. The Catholic church still sets a lot of the direction that the other Christian churches follow, whether or not they admit it openly.

Certainly, the influence is not as obvious or direct as it was.


Given that it is a resurrected body, I can accept your assertion that it is not just mundane. That seems to be a given.
But, the point of the Thomas bit is to prove that He is the same man that fell at Calvary, so I don't see the inconsistecy you say one must see.

Same man. Yes. But not the same flesh. The 'flesh' after the resurrection is fit for an eternity in heaven... and also, if we are to believe he appeared to Paul... kind of optional.

If we take the story at face value... and assume that the flesh was the actual LITERAL flesh that died at Calvary... then it is still 'dead'. And, if it is NOT dead... then the 'mortal wounds' make no sense.

It is inconsistent that Thomas could place his hands in MORTAL wounds on the SAME 'living' flesh. Thus - the body must have been some other KIND of 'flesh'... something more 'heavenly' perhaps... but certainly not the same mundane meat.

Why would your established morality be changed by that?

Because morality and religion are inextricably linked in me. Thus, if I were to find that my religion was incorrect, I would have to reexamine my morality as well - as they have developed together.

No, I understand that they are interwined, however, your morals are based in your reason, not on doctrine.

And my religion is based in my reason, not on doctrine. And the two have been come to concurrently.

All of our reason and definition is established by the consequence, the effects, so you must know the effect God has upon you before you can actually know God. Therefore, you knew your morality before you knew the source. Morality comes first.

Once again, you assume that morality is this construct that is set in stone. It is not. Just as I am constantly questioning my religion, I am constantly questioning my morality - both as a direct result of questioning my religion and as a separate set of questions.

Definition of secularism: "The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education." If your religion holds that you must never exclude it from anything, then you are contradicting your own religion, thus forming your own religion of secularism by still claiming to be religious.

Sorry my dear, but you are wrong. Why are you wrong? Because one does not have to excluse religion from their personal role in civil affiars or public education to be secular. One must simply realize that their religion cannot control these things or be an official (ie. affecting others) part of it.

I am a scientist and a Christian. I know that science can neither posit a God nor refute one. Thus, I do not discuss God in my science. However, from a personal point of view, that does not mean God is not a part of it. It simply means that God is not an offcial part of it.

Example: John Roberts of the Supreme Court. SUPPOSEDLY pro-life Roman Catholic, yet he said that his personal view will not affect his rulings. This is secularism, and I see it as a religion separate from Catholicism.

He cannot truly say that his view will not affect his rulings - it obviously will. What he can say is that he will not make rulings based upon his religion. That doesn't mean that his religion is at all removed from his life, just that he will not force it upon others. He will make his decisions based on the law.

Not even physically dead. That was the point of the resurrection. He actually ate fish with his disciples, let them touch his scars, cooked fish on the beach. The scriptures are clear in maintaining that Christ is alive, and is neither dead physically or spiritually. He apparently told Peter that He was going to build his church, and the gates of Hell will not prevail, etc. Jocabia, you have it wrong. Christ IS the head of the church, according to the scriptures. And any church leader that was not following His guidance and was not leading out of God's interests was a false leader. Hence that is a likely explanation for all those Inquisition and Crusade leaders, in my view. Leaders that were not following Christ.

The writer of Hebrews points out that Christ, the man, is sitting on the throne in Heaven on the right hand of God. The living Christ, Jocabia, in His resurrected body. Only as such can He as the High Priest interceed for humanity. Do you believe it?

The death I reference is a physical one. Heaven is not physical, despite your claims. In the ancient scripture there are a lot of references to the body, and it is used different ways, as GnI points out. However, Jesus is not in the flesh as I am in the flesh. That's not an interpretation, that's a fact. Heaven isn't an alternate universe. It's supernatural. In the natural world, Jesus is DEAD, which is what I said. Claims to the contrary are simply silly.

I think most of the Church leaders were not following Christ. Christ would not have been happy with organized religion in my opinion. It puts people in positions to lead through politics and choice rather than simply being good Christians and inspiring others. It appoints fathers and teachers on earth when Jesus said there would be no more. And in the Catholic Church it sits a man in the place of honor just as the pharisees did and just as Jesus lamented. This is why I examine all of the tales of Jesus and not just those chosen by the Church that rejected so much of what he said and did and acted clearly counter to his purpose.

In your opinion, yes. In mine, no.

Once again, you try this idiotic, "Everything is an opinion, therefore I can spout whatever stupidity I like, and you can't say anything, because it is just opinion."

One can only have an opinion about something that cannot be confirmed. The bases of mathematics can be confirmed. The process of science can be confirmed. The wavelength of a beam of light can be confirmed. Thus, even if you say, "My opinion is that this beam of light has a wavelength of 20 nm!" over and over, if it has been measured as 35 nm, then you are SOL, my dear. What you are saying isn't "opinion", it is just plain wrong.

"2+2=4" is a statement. If you believe that it is correct, that is your opinion. Facts are simply opinions that are extremely well-supported. But such support is philosophically only based upon interpretation/perception. If I count two fingers plus two fingers equals four fingers, that is my perception from my eyes alone. What if I am blind (other than feeling around or whatever).

This is even more idiotic. The number of fingers has nothing to do with perception. You could be holding up four fingers and no one could count them, but there would still be four fingers.


Meanwhile, you didn't answer me. You said that anything that isn't for God is against God, and thus you reject it. So, why are you using the products of science, which is, by definition, separate from considerations of God? Shouldn't you reject all the products of science as, by your logic, they would be "against God"?


You can learn about morality, but you cannot learn morality from others. I can listen to a preacher speak, but it is all just words until I rationally examine their worth.

If you have to actually experience everything he describes, rather than just thinking about it, how can you ever rationally examine their worth?

You could understand the process that brought me to my spiritual awakening?

Probably.

You could understand God's purpose and desire in contacting me?

No one could claim to do that, so it is a silly question.

I am just saying that it would be callous for someone to base their morality on a religious experience as they cannot know if their perception is correct. A certain degree of truth is required for forming a morality.

No one can ever know for sure that any perception is correct - not even that which we call empirical can be 100% known to be correct. Thus, *any* morality, whether based in religious experience or not, is based in an experience that may or may not have been perceived "correctly".

Just so you know I am not the only one who DECLARED it to be.

Don't try and twist my words. I never said that one cannot share a religious experience. I said that one cannot directly experience the religion of another - this would require being inside that person's head. But I could tell someone about my experiences and they could share in that experience by hearing about it. People do it at churches all the time - it's usually called witnessing or giving testimony.

In the end, it would be no different than a person telling you about any other experience you haven't yet had yourself. My mother has told me about what it was like to be pregnant, so I have shared in that experience, although I have not yet been pregnant myself. My aunt told me what it was like to find her husband, who had just had bypass surgery, passed out on the couch and to think he had died - I could experience her fear, albeit not directly.

3. I am not saying that truth is needed in the slightest to experience a story. I am only saying that it is needed to form a valid morality. You cannot form a morality on falsehoods, so one must take the reasonable steps to confirm truth. One cannot do that when examining the religious experience of another.

So empathy can never be used in determining morality, then? I cannot determine that an action is wrong based on how it has affected others? I must actually experience it myself? And how do I know they are telling the truth about how it affected them? I'm not in their heads. Well, I have no reason to disbelieve them, so I do not.

Yes, I am saying that. For a person to be moral, he examines a concept for moral truth before accepting it as religious truth, as a moral person would not accept a religious tenet if he did not first find it to be a moral tenet.

But what you fail to see is that a religious person would not accept a moral tenet without first finding it to be compatible with religion. It is a two-way process, with both morality and religion involved at all times.


Ok, in that case, I agree. If one has blind obedience, without consideration of the alternatives to obedience, then obviously, there is no choice there. But, really, have you met anyone like that? I don't think anyone could be in that position. Humans are too intelligent for that, surely. Anyway, it wouldn't be obedience, which implies choice, but more like a computer performing operations according to a program.

They consider the alternatives to obedience - punishment. However, the alternative actions are not considered on their own merit, outside of the carrot/stick mentality - and that is the problem.

And no, unfortunately, humans aren't too intelligent for that. There are many out there who want someone else to lay out the rules for them so that they never have to think. Children are raised, at least at young ages in this way. We hope that they will mature, but not all do.

OK, intelligent point made. However, simply because there are rewards at stake does not mean that there is no morality involved. Indeed, we are quite intelligent enough to realize that we shall never be free of reward, in some form or another, regardless of what we choose. So your point is only a theoretical one, and cannot be used to argue that only non-religious people can have morality (because they also are not free of a reward).

No, having rewards (or punishments) at stakme doesn't not automatically remove morality. It is only when the person is doing the action (or not doing it) because of the reward/punishment, rather than because of considering the action to determine its morality, that no morality is actually involved.

Take 3 people: 2 Christians and an atheist all walking towards street corners where the "little old lady" is about to cross the street. Each has a different scenario:

1) One Christian walks up and waits for the light to change. He doesn't even glance at the lady who might need help. A figure appears and says, "I will give you $1 million dollars if you help that lady across the street. If you do not, I will beat you with a baseball bat." The Christian walks her across the street and gets his million.

2) An atheist walks up to a street corner with a similar situation. He walks the lady across the street with no offers of reward or punishment.

3) A Christian walks up and sees the old lady. He walks her across the street. Someone walks up and gives him $1 million for doing it, but he did it without consideration (or, in this case, even knowledge) that he might get such a reward.

Out of the 3, who has been more moral?

Ha. This is really sad. Stop being so stubborn and simply concede the point.

You don't want to address my points, I guess?

So morality comes from experience but not personal experience according you. What kind of experience are we talking about? Second-hand or third-hand experience?

Where did I say that the experience cannot be personal?

I only said that the perception of the experience must be able to be shared. For example, I can read your post and think that you keep posting strawmen, but I shouldn't accept it as truth until I have my opinion verified.

Now, one might assume you're going to say interpersonal experiences but you're said repeatedly that we can't experience other people's feelings and experiences, etc.

We cannot experience for other people, but we can experience what other people experience. If I say that I own a red car, you can look at the car and also experience the redness of the car.

Seriously, let's stop being silly here. My original point is that we learn from experiences and religious experiences exist and they can and sometimes do affect our morality. They are not necessarily independent as you claim. You're run around in circles and done anything to discount the lessons of religion. The squirming is making you look silly.

So I don't run around in circles, I will just repost what you snipped out.

"Let us begin by stating that having a morality and being moral are different concepts. At no point did I say that one could not pull his morality from a religious code, I only stated that it would not be a valid morality and he would not be moral in doing so."

You're squirming and it's disappointing. Simply man up and admit you're arguing a ridiculous point. I've been nailing you to the wall on this point for three days. I'm start to feel a little like a bully.

I am glad you have a healthy self-esteem, but not once during this post did you address any of my points directly. You misinterpreted them and danced around them.

By the by, just to drive this home -

One wonders how a statement like "how a person perceives the world" and "a person's interpretation of how the world works" does not refer to personal experience, but I suppose you're going to try and find a way to squirm out of this one as well.

There can be common perceptions. ALL EXPERIENCE IS PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, but only those personal experiences that can be confirmed by another person's perception should be trusted in deciding one's morality.

I don't know how many posts I have stated that in, but it is enough to guess that you will misinterpret it again.

GnI, a question: Would you also argue that non-religious moral philosophies invoking an externally determined morality (for example, Platonism) don't allow their adherents to be truly moral?

If it replaces the 'need' to think about a moral decision, then I see it as much the same thing... only without the implied necessity for a 'supernatural' arbiter.

There can be common perceptions. ALL EXPERIENCE IS PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, but only those personal experiences that can be confirmed by another person's perception should be trusted in deciding one's morality.

Once again, this discounts the use of empathy. I cannot look at how upset my mother is over an action and draw my moral views on said action from that hurt. I must be hurt myself, because I cannot trust her perception of the action or of her own feelings. Thus, we have to throw empathy, one of those traits that makes us able to make moral decisions, out the window right off the bat, according to you.

Unknown, but it was implied that it may be where ever God's kingdom is, anything more is just speculation.

Doesn't appear to be, we certainly haven't found it in our mundane world. The most common understanding puts it in a Heaven accesible during the afterlife.
I'm not entirely sold on that one line of thought though.

Are you specifically asking me to speculate? Because I'll decline, it's a pointless exercise.
We were told that our minds can't quite grasp what exactly the afterlife is like, but we are given many illustrations, many of which have been taken literally and I personally don't believe any of them were meant to be literal.

All of which adds up to the point I was trying to make... the 'heaven' we have been promised is not one we can easily describe in mundane terms.. .certainly not with any certainty.

And the more we try to make it like a 'earthly' place, the more we feel we must be departing from the intent.

All I'm arguing is - the more we make the 'flesh' of the resurrection like our own sweaty, carnal flesh... the less I think we match the 'intent'.

Is the flesh physically living? Nope. Heaven is not a physical place. He ascended to heaven. To claim there is any scripture to support that Jesus is currently living in the flesh is disingenuous at base.

To claim there is any scripture to support that Jesus is dead is at best wrong.

According to Scripture, the known sequence of events is:
Jesus is physically born.
Jesus physically dies.
Jesus is physically resurrected.
Jeus physically ascends to Heaven.

Any assertion to a change to his status since then is baseless.
Any discussion of his nature in Heaven or even the nature of Heaven is speculation.

It may seem common sense to you that Jesus is dead physically, but you have nothing to support it.

The living Christ, Jocabia, in His resurrected body. Only as such can He as the High Priest interceed for humanity. Do you believe it?


Can you resurrect yourself?

Would you know how?

We have no experience of resurrection. We can know almost nothing about the NATURE of the flesh of Jesus AFTER the resurrection, because we have no frame of reference.

What we CAN discern about it, makes the resurrected body of Christ somewhat different to the incarnation.


As some point you two chaps have to disagree, you know. It isn't all that logical that an atheist and a christian should agree on virtually everything. One of you is compromising, perhaps?

Well, first - just let me say that compromise isn't a bad thing. I would certainly have no qualms about compromise with someone I respect the way I respect Jocabia.

However, the truth is that we DO disagree on some issues... we just tend to agree on more issues, I guess.

Regarding spiritual issues... we seem to have followed similar paths, to similar conclusions. The only noticable difference is a small one - or a HUGE one, depending on your view... a simple matter of whether our paths left us as believers, or not.

But - I have yet to work out why you find it 'illogical' that an Atheist and Christian should agree?

To claim there is any scripture to support that Jesus is dead is at best wrong.

According to Scripture, the known sequence of events is:
Jesus is physically born.
Jesus physically dies.
Jesus is physically resurrected.
Jeus physically ascends to Heaven.

Any assertion to a change to his status since then is baseless.
Any discussion of his nature in Heaven or even the nature of Heaven is speculation.

It may seem common sense to you that Jesus is dead physically, but you have nothing to support it.

Where, in your chronology, do you place Jesus appearing (without flesh) to Saul?

I still think the body of the church IS collectively led to an extent, by the papacy. The Catholic church still sets a lot of the direction that the other Christian churches follow, whether or not they admit it openly.


I accept that is your view, but I do not agree with it at all.

Certainly, the influence is not as obvious or direct as it was.


If it exists to any significant amount at all, then your statement is true.

Same man. Yes. But not the same flesh. The 'flesh' after the resurrection is fit for an eternity in heaven... and also, if we are to believe he appeared to Paul... kind of optional.

If we take the story at face value... and assume that the flesh was the actual LITERAL flesh that died at Calvary... then it is still 'dead'. And, if it is NOT dead... then the 'mortal wounds' make no sense.

It is inconsistent that Thomas could place his hands in MORTAL wounds on the SAME 'living' flesh. Thus - the body must have been some other KIND of 'flesh'... something more 'heavenly' perhaps... but certainly not the same mundane meat.

1. I have no trouble with the 'optional' part.
2. If the literal flesh is resurrected, then it is nonsense to say it is still dead.
3. I don't have your same issue with the 'mortal wounds', while flesh before the cross, he performed many miraculous things, how is this different in any significant way?

Just add to your puzzlement over His resurrected nature, He also appeared to his disciples suddenly in a locked (or was it just closed?) room apparently without walking in.

But again, is that more baffling than walking on water done with 'mundane meat'?

To claim there is any scripture to support that Jesus is dead is at best wrong.

According to Scripture, the known sequence of events is:
Jesus is physically born.
Jesus physically dies.
Jesus is physically resurrected.
Jeus physically ascends to Heaven.

Any assertion to a change to his status since then is baseless.
Any discussion of his nature in Heaven or even the nature of Heaven is speculation.

It may seem common sense to you that Jesus is dead physically, but you have nothing to support it.

Well, technically the oldest Gospel (Mark) doesn't have any of that at all. It ends with the two Mary's going to the burial site and finding it empty without saying what happened to Jesus. It's only later gospels that mention it, and by that time we know that there is a feud going on between our interpretation of the text and Gnostic interpretation of the text. So it is at least possible that someone inserted the whole discussion about eating fish to discredit Gnosticism, not necessarily because that's what happened.

All of which adds up to the point I was trying to make... the 'heaven' we have been promised is not one we can easily describe in mundane terms.. .certainly not with any certainty.

And the more we try to make it like a 'earthly' place, the more we feel we must be departing from the intent.


Complete agreement.

All I'm arguing is - the more we make the 'flesh' of the resurrection like our own sweaty, carnal flesh... the less I think we match the 'intent'.

I have no issue with the intent of your argument, I like it from a speculative point, but it's nothing we can know, so I accept the last bit we know as the default until we learn more.

You don't want to address my points, I guess?

No, I don't. Because you don't ever drink in what I say. In fact, you don't even drink in what you say which is why you can make bizarre claims that are completely counter to each other.

You make me feel like a bully because though I think you are intelligent and honest, you don't plan your claims out nor hold on to what you already said so it's like arguing with a goldfish. Arguing with someone who never gets any better at it is boring, and I can't even be angry at you because you're not even doing it on purpose.

Every time we show you logically how just because something is not possible for you does not make it impossible and in fact how suggesting it is impossible is illogical, you make up a definition or change the playing field and act like we must agree to the change of venue. I'm not interested.

"That apple is purple."
"No, it's not, it's red."
"Look at it, it's purple."
"The color of the apple refers to the light spectrum it reflects and our eye detects. That part of the spectrum that we are seeing is a combination of light that we call red."
"Is purple made up of red and blue?"
"Yes, technically."
"Exactly."
and so on...

It's just silliness. You're playing a game and I don't even think you realize that you've already lost. When Dem and I agree, you're probably doing something wrong, because we love to disagree.

I accept that is your view, but I do not agree with it at all.

Really. What percentage of the Christian Church uses the Bible as the inerrant word of God?

I accept that is your view, but I do not agree with it at all.


You are free to disbelieve... but I think you'd see what I mean if you looked for it.


1. I have no trouble with the 'optional' part.
2. If the literal flesh is resurrected, then it is nonsense to say it is still dead.
3. I don't have your same issue with the 'mortal wounds', while flesh before the cross, he performed many miraculous things, how is this different in any significant way?

Just add to your puzzlement over His resurrected nature, He also appeared to his disciples suddenly in a locked (or was it just closed?) room apparently without walking in.

But again, is that more baffling than walking on water done with 'mundane meat'?

I'm not 'puzzled' over the nature of the resurrection.. I think it fairly obvious that the flesh that was 'reborn' was subtly different to the flesh that died on the cross.

The Bible is filled with 'miraculous' stories... but only ONE person that brings himself back from the dead... and surely that is the point? The thing that separates the one from the others?

And, in the wake of the resurrection - we see a different way of 'being'... we see a form of Jesus that can do more than just the almost 'magical' actions of the earthly ministry. We see something that is sometimes physical and sometimes not... which does not match any received definition of the mundane flesh.

To claim there is any scripture to support that Jesus is dead is at best wrong.

According to Scripture, the known sequence of events is:
Jesus is physically born.
Jesus physically dies.
Jesus is physically resurrected.
Jeus physically ascends to Heaven.

Any assertion to a change to his status since then is baseless.
Any discussion of his nature in Heaven or even the nature of Heaven is speculation.

It may seem common sense to you that Jesus is dead physically, but you have nothing to support it.

Yes, and do you know why carnal desires are called carnal desires? Hmmmm... because it's related to the meat. Do you know what incarnate means? In the meat. Jesus is not incarnate because the very use of the word references the natural world of which heaves is not a part. Jesus is no longer a part of the natural world, he is outside it. He is not incarnate. He is dead in the flesh in every natural sense of the word. Your claims otherwise are disingenuous. You don't actually believe him to be a part of the physical world. To us, that is dead.

Complete agreement.

I have no issue with the intent of your argument, I like it from a speculative point, but it's nothing we can know, so I accept the last bit we know as the default until we learn more.

What IS the "last bit we know"?

We 'know' that Jesus was a mortal man (if you accept even that, which we are assuming, due to the nature of the discussion).

That means Jesus ate, drank, slept, took a dump... all the activities of mortal flesh. We also 'know' that he could die of mortal wounds.

After the resurrection, we 'know' he had mortal wounds at one point - although they are later not mentioned. We 'know' that he shared food with his friends... but we don't know if he metabolised it as a mortal man. We 'know' that he appeared WITHOUT the mortal flesh (something VERY different to anything in his earthly ministry) on at least one occassion.

So - what it comes down to is - the 'last thing we know' is that the flesh was different in some ways, to the flesh on the cross.

Surely, then... some kind of spiritual body is 'the default'?

If it replaces the 'need' to think about a moral decision, then I see it as much the same thing... only without the implied necessity for a 'supernatural' arbiter.

So would you say that you can't be moral unless you're the creator of your own moral code? I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from here.

What IS the "last bit we know"?

We 'know' that Jesus was a mortal man (if you accept even that, which we are assuming, due to the nature of the discussion).

That means Jesus ate, drank, slept, took a dump... all the activities of mortal flesh. We also 'know' that he could die of mortal wounds.

After the resurrection, we 'know' he had mortal wounds at one point - although they are later not mentioned. We 'know' that he shared food with his friends... but we don't know if he metabolised it as a mortal man. We 'know' that he appeared WITHOUT the mortal flesh (something VERY different to anything in his earthly ministry) on at least one occassion.

So - what it comes down to is - the 'last thing we know' is that the flesh was different in some ways, to the flesh on the cross.

Surely, then... some kind of spiritual body is 'the default'?

We know that the scripture has him as incorporeal. You can't have it both ways. His flesh isn't appearing and disappearing. He is no longer bound to the body, clearly. By all earthly definition, this is physical death. More importantly this silly argument is about my use of the word, which has been made clear over and over. This is just an unmasked attempt to derail the conversation over something silly. It's quite clear the Jesus is no longer living in the conventional and natural meaning of the word.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/dead
1 : deprived of life : having died

Jesus most certainly qualifies as having died. The resurrection does not refer to making him terrestrial again, which of course he is capable of, but making him something different. He couldn't and wouldn't ascend prior to having died. His death, his corporeal death is the turning point in his ministry. It's the point of the text. To discount that event it to suggest the whole text is questionable, Snow. Jesus died for you. Do you not believe that, Snow? (see I can do that too).

So would you say that you can't be moral unless you're the creator of your own moral code? I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from here.

I would say, no, that's not it at all. You can't be moral unless you have considered your morality and acted according to that consideration. However, the actual creator of that moral code could be many things, of which you are one.

Sup Jacobia,

Totally off topic but, you wouldn't happen to be in the Matraves Crescent Police Dept in Roachtown would you? If you are it might be handy to just search a lot to get a shotgun and ammo or more pistol clips :). Kill those zombie bastards.

I would say, no, that's not it at all. You can't be moral unless you have considered your morality and acted according to that consideration. However, the actual creator of that moral code could be many things, of which you are one.

To clarify, I wasn't offering my own opinion. The question was meant specifically for Grave_n_idle, because it seems to me that's where he's going with his argument, and I want to make sure I've got it right.

Where, in your chronology, do you place Jesus appearing (without flesh) to Saul?


Obviously after His ascension.

I presume you suggest his apparent non-corporeal appearance as indicative of his lack of flesh?

I'm not sure why you hold to an either/or dichotomy.
Could He not be flesh, and yet still appear to Paul the way He did?
If He is spirit and flesh, is His spirit bound by the restrictions of flesh?

Well, technically the oldest Gospel (Mark) doesn't have any of that at all. It ends with the two Mary's going to the burial site and finding it empty without saying what happened to Jesus. It's only later gospels that mention it, and by that time we know that there is a feud going on between our interpretation of the text and Gnostic interpretation of the text. So it is at least possible that someone inserted the whole discussion about eating fish to discredit Gnosticism, not necessarily because that's what happened.

For the purposes of discussion, I'm taking the canon to be true.

Really. What percentage of the Christian Church uses the Bible as the inerrant word of God?


Tea costs $1.50 in China.

Because morality and religion are inextricably linked in me. Thus, if I were to find that my religion was incorrect, I would have to reexamine my morality as well - as they have developed together.

I was trying to explore the link between your religion and your morality, so repeating that they were linked doesn't quite answer my question.

Once again, you assume that morality is this construct that is set in stone. It is not. Just as I am constantly questioning my religion, I am constantly questioning my morality - both as a direct result of questioning my religion and as a separate set of questions.

I don't know how you got that from what I said.

So would you say that you can't be moral unless you're the creator of your own moral code? I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from here.

No - I'm saying if you operate on a 'code', you are setting yourself up for a fall.

Better to have ideas, and judge each incident on it's own merit.

(The way I se it, even if you make your OWN code, if you 'obey' it... you are demonstrating obedience... not 'morality'.)

Obviously after His ascension.

I presume you suggest his apparent non-corporeal appearance as indicative of his lack of flesh?

I'm not sure why you hold to an either/or dichotomy.
Could He not be flesh, and yet still appear to Paul the way He did?
If He is spirit and flesh, is His spirit bound by the restrictions of flesh?

I think you could argue that non-corporeal actually MEANS 'lacking flesh'... so that wouldn't be too great a stretch...

I don't see where you are going with this... surely we are ALL 'spirit' and flesh? Is your spirit not bound by your flesh?


I'm not saying Jesus was fleshless. I'm saying that he didn't have what WE consider 'flesh'... because he could apparently chose to 'wear' it or not.

So - unless we conjure an image of Jesus in spirit, talking to Saul... but leaving a 'meat puppet' waiting for his return in heaven... then I think we ahve to assume that the spirit and 'flseh' of post-ascension Jesus are the same thing... manifestations of himself.

Obviously after His ascension.

I presume you suggest his apparent non-corporeal appearance as indicative of his lack of flesh?

I'm not sure why you hold to an either/or dichotomy.
Could He not be flesh, and yet still appear to Paul the way He did?
If He is spirit and flesh, is His spirit bound by the restrictions of flesh?

If He were flesh like we are, His spirit *would* be bound by those restrictions.

I think that's what Grave is trying to get at here.


I was trying to explore the link between your religion and your morality, so repeating that they were linked doesn't quite answer my question.

You asked why I would have to reexamine my morality if my religion were found to be in error. That is like asking why I would have to reexamine evolutionary theory if the basics of genetics were found to be wrong, or vice versa. The two are based upon each other, and have developed in concert. If one is wrong, there's a damn good chance that the other is as well. Thus, if one were found to be in error, the other would also have to be reexamined.

I don't know how you got that from what I said.

You have repeatedly stated that one must have a morality set before one can form a religion. This would suggest that morality is set in stone, and religion is simply based around it, rather than the truth of the matter, which is that they are both constantly developing - in ways that are affected by their links.

If He were flesh like we are, His spirit *would* be bound by those restrictions.

I think that's what Grave is trying to get at here.


Yes.

It is the 'flesh like we are' that is the issue. We KNOW about 'flesh like we are'... and it certainly doesn't match the specifications of whatever system the resurrected Christ is supposed to have been running.

So - it seems that that 'flesh' must have been NOT 'flesh like we are'.

Thanks for the assist, Dem. :)

Once again, this discounts the use of empathy. I cannot look at how upset my mother is over an action and draw my moral views on said action from that hurt. I must be hurt myself, because I cannot trust her perception of the action or of her own feelings. Thus, we have to throw empathy, one of those traits that makes us able to make moral decisions, out the window right off the bat, according to you.

I don't understand, certainly empathy has a place within reason.

One takes previous experience within one's own life and then projects themselves into another to get a grasp upon the feelings of another. It is a reasonable process.

Enough people have been punched to verify that it hurts, enough people have been insulted to verify that it hurts. Hell, science has documented the process by which we experience pain.

Tell me this, if someone told you that your prayers caused them physical pain, would you believe them, would you cease to pray out of empathy?

No, I don't. Because you don't ever drink in what I say. In fact, you don't even drink in what you say which is why you can make bizarre claims that are completely counter to each other.

You make me feel like a bully because though I think you are intelligent and honest, you don't plan your claims out nor hold on to what you already said so it's like arguing with a goldfish. Arguing with someone who never gets any better at it is boring, and I can't even be angry at you because you're not even doing it on purpose.

Every time we show you logically how just because something is not possible for you does not make it impossible and in fact how suggesting it is impossible is illogical, you make up a definition or change the playing field and act like we must agree to the change of venue. I'm not interested.

"That apple is purple."
"No, it's not, it's red."
"Look at it, it's purple."
"The color of the apple refers to the light spectrum it reflects and our eye detects. That part of the spectrum that we are seeing is a combination of light that we call red."
"Is purple made up of red and blue?"
"Yes, technically."
"Exactly."
and so on...

It's just silliness. You're playing a game and I don't even think you realize that you've already lost. When Dem and I agree, you're probably doing something wrong, because we love to disagree.

You never even addressed my post that summarized my arguments, but I don't really give a shit anymore.

I don't understand, certainly empathy has a place within reason.

According to you, you must be able to physically confirm that someone has had a given experience before you can trust them on it and use that to form your own opinions. Thus, when my mother tells me that having someone cheat on her hurt her, I can't just take her word for it, because that is only her perception and it might be wrong. In fact, I can't even take her word for it that she was hurt, since her perception might be wrong. I can't use her experience at all in determining whether or not cheating on someone is wrong.

Of course, if you would like to rescind your comment that those experiences - such as the feelings of others - that you cannot physically verify cannot be used in the creation of a moral code....

A religious experience is no different than an emotion. I cannot physically verify or directly experience another's religious experience - that is true. I also cannot do so for another's emotion. I can only assume that they feel the way they say they do. But I can still use that to share their experiences, to empathize with them, and to form a moral viewpoint.

One takes previous experience within one's own life and then projects themselves into another to get a grasp upon the feelings of another. It is a reasonable process.

And one can take previous experience in one's own life in order to grasp the feelings of another who has had a religious experience. If one has not personally had such an experience, it might be more difficult, but the person telling can relate that experience to emotions that the listener has felt.

Tell me this, if someone told you that your prayers caused them physical pain, would you believe them, would you cease to pray out of empathy?

If someone knew I was praying about them, and told me this, I would be skeptical, but I wouldn't discount them. And if they asked me to stop praying for them, I would - out of respect moreso than empathy.

You are free to disbelieve... but I think you'd see what I mean if you looked for it.


You are free to think so, but still, I don't see it.
:)

I'm not 'puzzled' over the nature of the resurrection.. I think it fairly obvious that the flesh that was 'reborn' was subtly different to the flesh that died on the cross.

The Bible is filled with 'miraculous' stories... but only ONE person that brings himself back from the dead... and surely that is the point? The thing that separates the one from the others?

And, in the wake of the resurrection - we see a different way of 'being'... we see a form of Jesus that can do more than just the almost 'magical' actions of the earthly ministry. We see something that is sometimes physical and sometimes not... which does not match any received definition of the mundane flesh.

I'm curious why you attribute the changes to a fleshly difference?
Reading your post made me aware that I have always attributed the post resurrection changes in Christ to be from a spiritual difference.

If He were flesh like we are, His spirit *would* be bound by those restrictions.

I think that's what Grave is trying to get at here.


OK, I see that, but to both of you, why?
Why would His spirit be bound by any restrictions?
Why is flesh the limiting factor? I would presume the spirit would be the restricting element.

I'm curious why you attribute the changes to a fleshly difference?
Reading your post made me aware that I have always attributed the post resurrection changes in Christ to be from a spiritual difference.

The change isn't 'attributed' to fleshly difference. The post-resurrection changes and the fleshly difference are symptoms... aspects of the same thing.

OK, I see that, but to both of you, why?
Why would His spirit be bound by any restrictions?
Why is flesh the limiting factor? I would presume the spirit would be the restricting element.

The spirit is the limiting factor in the absence of flesh.

If you look at the testimony... the actions Jesus carried out BEFORE the crucifixion tend to have a 'conduit' nature. Jesus talks over and over about faith... and what you can do with it.

So - did Jesus LITERALLY 'do' the miracles? A more consitent reading would be that God did the miracles, with Jesus as a vessel or channel.

After the crucifixion, Jesus has undergone an effective apotheosis. No longer is he the vessel, but the power. And the difference is - the death of the old 'flesh'.

No one can ever know for sure that any perception is correct - not even that which we call empirical can be 100% known to be correct. Thus, *any* morality, whether based in religious experience or not, is based in an experience that may or may not have been perceived "correctly".

Granted, but do you propose we throw out all guidelines as to what constitutes truth?

Don't try and twist my words. I never said that one cannot share a religious experience. I said that one cannot directly experience the religion of another - this would require being inside that person's head. But I could tell someone about my experiences and they could share in that experience by hearing about it. People do it at churches all the time - it's usually called witnessing or giving testimony.

I apologize. My definition of sharing a religious experience must be different from Jocabia and yours. Apparently all I have to do is tell someone about dinner to actually share dinner with them.

Or do you mean that one can share discriptions about religious experiences and not the experiences themselves?

In the end, it would be no different than a person telling you about any other experience you haven't yet had yourself. My mother has told me about what it was like to be pregnant, so I have shared in that experience, although I have not yet been pregnant myself. My aunt told me what it was like to find her husband, who had just had bypass surgery, passed out on the couch and to think he had died - I could experience her fear, albeit not directly.

They are sharing stories with you about their own experience, and you could know what it was like to be in their situation, but you could not experience the fear for yourself as you were never in the situation. Nevertheless, the perception of a lost loved one has been shared by nearly all of us, so we can all testify to and understand the pain.

But what you fail to see is that a religious person would not accept a moral tenet without first finding it to be compatible with religion. It is a two-way process, with both morality and religion involved at all times.

So a person could find a perfectly moral tenet and reject it because it doesn't fit his religion? Wouldn't it be immoral to reject a valid moral tenet because of one's religion?

Remember, I am not arguing whether someone can get their morality from religion. I admitted they could somewhere near my first post, I am just arguing that, if their religion controls their morality then they are not being moral.

There is a difference between having a morality and being moral. I know plenty of people who have moral codes that aren't entirely moral.

More importantly this silly argument is about my use of the word, which has been made clear over and over.


Someone once told me, "You can't simply use any form of a word you like even if it makes no sense." Jesus may be spirit, he may not reside solely in the physical world, but he does not fit any definition of dead, not even the one you quote from a dictionary.



Jesus died for you. Do you not believe that, Snow? (see I can do that too).

Except, that was not me that posed a question like that you, you're a tad confused regarding who has said what.

The spirit is the limiting factor in the absence of flesh.


I don't see any reason to accept that. I believe that the spirit is always the limiting factor and that the flesh is actually irrelevant to the equation.

If you look at the testimony... the actions Jesus carried out BEFORE the crucifixion tend to have a 'conduit' nature. Jesus talks over and over about faith... and what you can do with it.

So - did Jesus LITERALLY 'do' the miracles? A more consitent reading would be that God did the miracles, with Jesus as a vessel or channel.

After the crucifixion, Jesus has undergone an effective apotheosis. No longer is he the vessel, but the power. And the difference is - the death of the old 'flesh'.

Perfect. I love it.
With one exception, everything you say after "And the difference is -"
Scripture refers to the 'old flesh' dying, but it is always a metaphor, i don't place any stock in 'old flesh' dying being literally meaningful.

Granted, but do you propose we throw out all guidelines as to what constitutes truth?

Of course not. But we must always admit that what we think constitutes "truth" may not. You said that anyone who derives morality from religious experience is not being moral because they cannot truly confirm their experience. But to say this means that you have to admit that no person is truly moral, as none of us can truly confirm our own experiences. Even that which is empirical is simply taken on assumption to be perceived correctly.

I apologize. My definition of sharing a religious experience must be different from Jocabia and yours. Apparently all I have to do is tell someone about dinner to actually share dinner with them.

Not to share dinner with them. But to share the experience with them, yes, you could tell them about it. If you had the best steak of your life then posted in NS about it, we could all, to a point, share in that experience. We wouldn't actually be physically tasting the steak, but we could understand the way you felt when you tasted it.

Or do you mean that one can share discriptions about religious experiences and not the experiences themselves?

Descriptions about experiences are experiences in and of themselves. They are not the exact same as the original experience, but they do invoke emotion and recognition.

They are sharing stories with you about their own experience, and you could know what it was like to be in their situation, but you could not experience the fear for yourself as you were never in the situation.

And, while I could never truly experience another's religion, they could share stories with me and I could know what it was like to be in their situation.

Nevertheless, the perception of a lost loved one has been shared by nearly all of us, so we can all testify to and understand the pain.

But even young children who have yet to lose a loved one can understand when another is in pain, and can comfort them.

So a person could find a perfectly moral tenet and reject it because it doesn't fit his religion? Wouldn't it be immoral to reject a valid moral tenet because of one's religion?

Nope. You missed it again. You are still assuming they are entirely separate things. Religion and morality develop in concert in the religious and moral person. Thus, moral tenets must be weighed against religion and religious tenets must be weighed against morality and this is an ongoing process. The point is that it is a two-way street, not the one way street you are positing or the one that you pretend I am positing.

You have repeatedly stated that one must have a morality set before one can form a religion. This would suggest that morality is set in stone, and religion is simply based around it, rather than the truth of the matter, which is that they are both constantly developing - in ways that are affected by their links.

No, it just means that religious tenets must be proceeded by moral judgements.

When I state that experience governs a valid moral code, then a valid moral code must be ever malleable as experience is always expanding.

Because religious tenets must be morally judged before accepted, then all accepted religious tenets must be preceeded by some moral stance on the issue.

No, it just means that religious tenets must be proceeded by moral judgements.

....which means, in turn, that religion can never affect moral judgements in any way. This is, however, untrue. In some cases, religious tenets proceed moral judgements, although said judgements must still be made. And in some cases, moral tenets proceed religious judgements, although such judgements still must be made.

When I state that experience governs a valid moral code, then a valid moral code must be ever malleable as experience is always expanding.

But you discount religious experience a source of moral malleability, and seem to discount other experiences in reference to moral judgements as a source of religious mallieability.

Because religious tenets must be morally judged before accepted, then all accepted religious tenets must be preceeded by some moral stance on the issue.

And moral judgements must be religiously judged before accepted. It's a two-way street.

Someone once told me, "You can't simply use any form of a word you like even if it makes no sense." Jesus may be spirit, he may not reside solely in the physical world, but he does not fit any definition of dead, not even the one you quote from a dictionary.

He doesn't. He didn't die? Perhaps I missed it. Can you explain how Jesus never died? He was both deprived of life and has died. He fully fits the definition.

But what's more important is that you can hold whatever belief you like, but you cannot claim that I didn't properly use the word. The idea is ludicrous. He is most certainly dead in the way I used the word and I challenge you to PROVE otherwise. If you can't, and we all know you can't, then your point is laughable.

Except, that was not me that posed a question like that you, you're a tad confused regarding who has said what.

I was kidding around. Get a sense of humor.

Of course not. But we must always admit that what we think constitutes "truth" may not. You said that anyone who derives morality from religious experience is not being moral because they cannot truly confirm their experience. But to say this means that you have to admit that no person is truly moral, as none of us can truly confirm our own experiences. Even that which is empirical is simply taken on assumption to be perceived correctly.

No, I said that they cannot find a valid morality in religious experience because it is impossible to confirm. One cannot know whether one's perception of what they consider a religious experience is erroneous or not, because there is no way another can back it up. It could simply be misconstrued by personal biases that are completely uncontrolled by the individual.

What I have said is that there should be some reasonable level of outside confirmation of perception that goes into forming a morality. That is owed to all people that one's morality has an effect on.

You could wake up knowing that God is ordering you to murder your neighbor, but you had better make some effort to confirm that. Fortunately (or unfortunately, whatever the case may be), you can't.

Not to share dinner with them. But to share the experience with them, yes, you could tell them about it. If you had the best steak of your life then posted in NS about it, we could all, to a point, share in that experience. We wouldn't actually be physically tasting the steak, but we could understand the way you felt when you tasted it.

That is quite right, you can experience another person's perception of an experience, but not percieve the experience for yourself. For the same reason that you cannot truly trust your own perception of a religious experience, you cannot trust another's.

Descriptions about experiences are experiences in and of themselves. They are not the exact same as the original experience, but they do invoke emotion and recognition.

Very true.

Nope. You missed it again. You are still assuming they are entirely separate things. Religion and morality develop in concert in the religious and moral person. Thus, moral tenets must be weighed against religion and religious tenets must be weighed against morality and this is an ongoing process. The point is that it is a two-way street, not the one way street you are positing or the one that you pretend I am positing.

I am stating that they are separate things. One is a reasonable examination to discover the origin of life, the origin of moral, one is a reasonable examination to find the results of the whatever religious process took place. They may be related but they are certainly different in nature.

I am positing that it should only be a one way street, that if it is two-way it ceases to be moral. Morality can only be established by itself, if religion is included, for reasons I have mentioned before, one is not forming a valid morality.

....which means, in turn, that religion can never affect moral judgements in any way. This is, however, untrue. In some cases, religious tenets proceed moral judgements, although said judgements must still be made. And in some cases, moral tenets proceed religious judgements, although such judgements still must be made.



But you discount religious experience a source of moral malleability, and seem to discount other experiences in reference to moral judgements as a source of religious mallieability.



And moral judgements must be religiously judged before accepted. It's a two-way street.

The problem is that he confuses religious and canonical and then gets upset that we don't accept them as equal. He treats religion like once we accept religion we must uphold some rigid code of laws and similarly morality so that if one preceeds the other they can't become intertwined. We know that if a person continues to examine and change so must both of these structures and as following our religious beliefs and our moralities affect our experiences they in turn affect our religious beliefs and our moralities and so on. A constantly growing religious and/or moral person cannot help but continue to edit and reform these beliefs as we interpret and reinterpret our worlds.

Of course, what you say is demonstrably true, but you can't convince a person you're wearing a yellow shirt if they refuse to open their eyes.

I am positing that it can only be a one way street, that if it is two-way it ceases to be moral.
You're not positing, you're declaring it to be true and then using it as proof of your own declaration. Positing says that you're willing to examine it and you've proven otherwise.

You can make all the claims you like, our experiences tell us otherwise.

Yes, of course ... though it does sometimes mean breaking the rules of your religion ....

I was saying to this just the other day on the phone to my Imam while drinking a beer, getting my dick sucked by a beautiful Asian 19 year old boy, and lighting some incense on my shrine to Kwan-Yin.

Now thems morals, baby!
I hope that was a joke. That's disgusting.

PS: Yes, I know that was 30 pages ago.

You could wake up knowing that God is ordering you to murder your neighbor, but you had better make some effort to confirm that. Fortunately (or unfortunately, whatever the case may be), you can't.

What if it was four of us and we all independently saw and heard God tell us to kill our neighbor, is it suddenly moral now? My opinion is no. What if all four people agreed we should do it? 100? 1000? 1,000,000? Still no for me. But then, I guess I didn't realize morality was up for vote. Because the experience didn't jive with my morality or my religion I would have to figure out a way to understand what happened.

However, my religious beliefs do tell me that a person goes to a better place when they die and because of this if someone was terminally ill and ask me to help them move on, I would do so in a heartbeat without qualms. That is absolutely one place where my religious views greatly affected my morality rather than what other people agree with (as most of the people in my life think it's wrong). My morality and religion tell me to cherish life, but if one was not able to do that because of the terminal illness, because of my religious views my morality has become one that would allow me to help that person pass on painlessly. In the absense of my religious views I couldn't find that moral, because even if it is a lowly existence it is all they have. I wouldn't find it immoral, but I simply COULD NOT make that kind of a decision thinking they were going into nothingness and be certain of it's morality. It's a very considered decision based on my experiences with the terminally ill and their wishes along with my religious studies and religious experiences.

I am completely comfortable with that area of my morality.

....which means, in turn, that religion can never affect moral judgements in any way. This is, however, untrue. In some cases, religious tenets proceed moral judgements, although said judgements must still be made. And in some cases, moral tenets proceed religious judgements, although such judgements still must be made.

Granted, but in the vein of the original post, I am stating that when religious ideology preceeds moral judgements one ceases to be truly moral.

Like I have said many times, a person can base their morality in religion, but morality must be based solely by its moral worth in order to be valid.

But you discount religious experience a source of moral malleability, and seem to discount other experiences in reference to moral judgements as a source of religious mallieability.

I do discount religious experience as a source of moral malleability. While it can be a source, it is not a valid one because it only applies to you, not the people who are the beneficiary of your morality.

But I don't understand where I stated anything that discounts experience as a source of religious malleability.

Granted, but in the vein of the original post, I am stating that when religious ideology preceeds moral judgements one ceases to be truly moral.

Like I have said many times, a person can base their morality in religion, but morality must be based solely by its moral worth in order to be valid.



I do discount religious experience as a source of moral malleability. While it can be a source, it is not a valid one because it only applies to you, not the people who are the beneficiary of your morality.

But I don't understand where I stated anything that discounts experience as a source of religious malleability.

EDIT: Nevermind. I misread that. I still toally disagree. Apparently you don't understand that morality does not ALWAYS affect other PEOPLE.

No, I said that they cannot find a valid morality in religious experience because it is impossible to confirm.

No more or less impossible to confirm than emotion. Does that mean that emotional responses cannot be used in forming a valid morality?

One cannot know whether one's perception of what they consider a religious experience is erroneous or not, because there is no way another can back it up. It could simply be misconstrued by personal biases that are completely uncontrolled by the individual.

The perception of any experience can be this way. If a person goes into skydiving terrified of heights, chances are that the experience of trying it won't be good for them - and their terrors will be confirmed. If, on the other hand, someone goes into it thinking it will be a rush, it probably will be. Their perceptions are construed by their personal biases - but, according to you, are still a basis for morality, simply because they are not religious experiences (unless, I suppose, God told them to skydive).

What I have said is that there should be some reasonable level of outside confirmation of perception that goes into forming a morality. That is owed to all people that one's morality has an effect on.

(a) Again, you discount anything that comes from emotional responses to an experience, as there is no outside confirmation of these things.

(b) Not all aspects of morality affect others. If I think that drinking on a Tuesday is immoral, and thus don't drink on a Tuesday, does that keep anyone else from doing so?

You could wake up knowing that God is ordering you to murder your neighbor, but you had better make some effort to confirm that. Fortunately (or unfortunately, whatever the case may be), you can't.

Sure you can. You can ask for further guidance. You can compare it to other guidance you have received. You can balance it against the teachings you have received in the past and those things you think are right and wrong. If your God was not one who would order such a thing, one of three things will happen: (a) You will conclude that it was not God giving the order, (b) You need to reevaluate your view of God, and whether or not following God is the right thing to do, or (c) You need to reevaluate your view of morality, and whether or not what you thought was right really is.

That is quite right, you can experience another person's perception of an experience, but not percieve the experience for yourself. For the same reason that you cannot truly trust your own perception of a religious experience, you cannot trust another's.

The second sentence doesn't follow in any way from the first. By this logic, we cannot trust our own emotional responses either - and we cannot trust those of another, at least not as bases for making moral judgements.

I am stating that they are separate things. One is a reasonable examination to discover the origin of life, the origin of moral, one is a reasonable examination to find the results of the whatever religious process took place. They may be related but they are certainly different in nature.

Not as different as you seem to think.

I am positing that it should only be a one way street, that if it is two-way it ceases to be moral. Morality can only be established by itself, if religion is included, for reasons I have mentioned before, one is not forming a valid morality.

And you are providing no evidence whatsoever for this claim. Your reasoning would lead us to state that only the empirical can be used in forming a moral viewpoint. One cannot use emotion, as it is not confirmable. One cannot use empathy, as one can never know if they truly understand the emotions of another. One cannot use anything they can't measure with a machine, apparently.

Granted, but in the vein of the original post, I am stating that when religious ideology preceeds moral judgements one ceases to be truly moral.

But it isn't simply having the religious ideology preceeding moral judgements that does this. It is accepting a moral code for no other reason than because anything else told you, be it religion or your government, that makes it cease to be moral. So long as the moral judgements proceed out of one's own examination, they are moral judgements. Simply holding a religious tenet before examining the moral one doesn't make it automatically amoral.

Like I have said many times, a person can base their morality in religion, but morality must be based solely by its moral worth in order to be valid.

And you seem to think these two things are mutually exclusive. They are not. One can base morality in religion and still be basing it solely in its moral worth - because their religion can be based in that same value.

I do discount religious experience as a source of moral malleability. While it can be a source, it is not a valid one because it only applies to you, not the people who are the beneficiary of your morality.

Any experience I have only applies to me, as I am the only one perceiving it in my way. I am the only one who it will affect in the way that it affects me.

But I don't understand where I stated anything that discounts experience as a source of religious malleability.

Every time you refer to religion as if it is of necessity dogmatic and unrelated to morality, you discount a change in religion based upon experience.

No more or less impossible to confirm than emotion. Does that mean that emotional responses cannot be used in forming a valid morality?

So we can't confirm that someone can be made sad, angry, or happy?

However, if you are talking about our own emotional responses, no, we should not rely on our own emotional response to decide our morality.

(Before you point it out, that doesn't mean that we can't use our own emotions to verify the truthfulness of another's emotions.)

The perception of any experience can be this way. If a person goes into skydiving terrified of heights, chances are that the experience of trying it won't be good for them - and their terrors will be confirmed. If, on the other hand, someone goes into it thinking it will be a rush, it probably will be. Their perceptions are construed by their personal biases - but, according to you, are still a basis for morality, simply because they are not religious experiences (unless, I suppose, God told them to skydive).

The person who is terrified of heights should not used his biased experience to outlaw skydiving. My qualifications go towards all biased experiences, religious experiences just happen to be ones that cannot be proved to have been biased.

In other words, the individual can know that skydiving is terrifying and enough people have agreed to establish reasonable proof of that. But, since others can have an entirely different perception of it, we know that it is not inherent to the experience.


(a) Again, you discount anything that comes from emotional responses to an experience, as there is no outside confirmation of these things.

Yep.

(b) Not all aspects of morality affect others. If I think that drinking on a Tuesday is immoral, and thus don't drink on a Tuesday, does that keep anyone else from doing so?

You are correct in that, but I can't quite say there is any valid morality that pertains to how one treats themselves.

Can someone actually be moral by themself? I'm not sure.

Sure you can. You can ask for further guidance. You can compare it to other guidance you have received. You can balance it against the teachings you have received in the past and those things you think are right and wrong. If your God was not one who would order such a thing, one of three things will happen: (a) You will conclude that it was not God giving the order, (b) You need to reevaluate your view of God, and whether or not following God is the right thing to do, or (c) You need to reevaluate your view of morality, and whether or not what you thought was right really is.

I will not address the part about teachings as that is already a point of contention, and will cause the argument to circle again.

Why would you decide that God was not one who would order such a thing? Would it be because you feel the action is morally wrong and therefore would not be a valid religious tenet?

And you are providing no evidence whatsoever for this claim. Your reasoning would lead us to state that only the empirical can be used in forming a moral viewpoint. One cannot use emotion, as it is not confirmable. One cannot use empathy, as one can never know if they truly understand the emotions of another. One cannot use anything they can't measure with a machine, apparently.

Reasonable proof can be provided by consensus of perception. A machine is not necessary.

Simply holding a religious tenet before examining the moral one doesn't make it automatically amoral.

So if you hold a tenet without examining the morality thereof, you are not being amoral. How can you be moral without considering morality?

And you seem to think these two things are mutually exclusive. They are not. One can base morality in religion and still be basing it solely in its moral worth - because their religion can be based in that same value.

Like I have said, if a religion is based in morality then it is not immoral.

Any experience I have only applies to me, as I am the only one perceiving it in my way. I am the only one who it will affect in the way that it affects me.

But the consequence of the experience, the perception can be duplicated and confirmed.

Every time you refer to religion as if it is of necessity dogmatic and unrelated to morality, you discount a change in religion based upon experience.

I have stated that religion can be based in morality, I have also stated that a religion can be based outside of morality. Neither form can be dogmatic and can change.

The only thing I am stating is that in order for the religion to be morally valid, it and all changes to it must be based in moral examination.

So we can't confirm that someone can be made sad, angry, or happy?

We can only know what emotion they say they are feeling, or we can project our own emotions onto them by saying, "When I react that way, it is because I am feeling sad/angry/happy." But we can never actually confirm that they do feel that way, because it is based entirely in self-diagnosis.

However, if you are talking about our own emotional responses, no, we should not rely on our own emotional response to decide our morality.

(Before you point it out, that doesn't mean that we can't use our own emotions to verify the truthfulness of another's emotions.)

Of course it does. If we can't trust our own emotional responses, how can we trust that what we feel is what they feel?

The person who is terrified of heights should not used his biased experience to outlaw skydiving.

Who said anything about outlawing it? I know I didn't. The person simply used his biased experience to decide that it was a bad idea to skydive.

Yep.

Then, as I said before, you discount empathy.

Meanwhile, you are contradicting what you said above.

You are correct in that, but I can't quite say there is any valid morality that pertains to how one treats themselves.

So, when someone says that your body is a temple and you should take care of it, that isn't a statement of a moral tenet?

I will not address the part about teachings as that is already a point of contention, and will cause the argument to circle again.

Why would you decide that God was not one who would order such a thing? Would it be because you feel the action is morally wrong and therefore would not be a valid religious tenet?/quote]

There could be all sorts of reasons. Part of it would be that the action is morally wrong, and from a religious point of view, you do not believe that God would order something that was morally wrong. Part of it could be that you examine the experience and it is unlike guidance you have received in the past. Part of it could be that you have reason to believe you are imbalanced (ie. chemical imbalances). And so on....

You seem to think that a religious person is incapable of examining a religious experience rationally.

[quote]Reasonable proof can be provided by consensus of perception. A machine is not necessary.

So a bunch of people self-diagnosing themselves, without any indication whatsoever that their perceptions are actually the same, is somehow empirical proof? Does the color blue look exactly the same to you as it does to me? How would we know?

So if you hold a tenet without examining the morality thereof, you are not being amoral. How can you be moral without considering morality?

I never said that. In fact, if you read what you quoted, you will see that I said the exact opposite:

Simply holding a religious tenet before examining the moral one doesn't make it automatically amoral.

Note that examination must still take place. Some of that examination will relate to religion, and some will not.

Like I have said, if a religion is based in morality then it is not immoral.

But the logical extension of that would be that if morality is, in turn, based in that religion, the morality is not immoral.

But the consequence of the experience, the perception can be duplicated and confirmed.

No it can't. How do I ever know that your perception is the same as mine?

I have stated that religion can be based in morality, I have also stated that a religion can be based outside of morality. Neither form can be dogmatic and can change.

The only thing I am stating is that in order for the religion to be morally valid, it and all changes to it must be based in moral examination.

This is not the same thing as saying that morality cannot be based in religion, which is what you have seemed to be saying all along.

We can only know what emotion they say they are feeling, or we can project our own emotions onto them by saying, "When I react that way, it is because I am feeling sad/angry/happy." But we can never actually confirm that they do feel that way, because it is based entirely in self-diagnosis.

Of course it does. If we can't trust our own emotional responses, how can we trust that what we feel is what they feel?

In general emotion is a perception that can be confirmed by consensus. In particular it should not have an effect on one's morality.

So, when someone says that your body is a temple and you should take care of it, that isn't a statement of a moral tenet?

I don't know if it is a particularly valid one. The subject here is not morality, but valid morality. It seems more like practicality.

There could be all sorts of reasons. Part of it would be that the action is morally wrong, and from a religious point of view, you do not believe that God would order something that was morally wrong. Part of it could be that you examine the experience and it is unlike guidance you have received in the past. Part of it could be that you have reason to believe you are imbalanced (ie. chemical imbalances). And so on....

The first example is a reason to reject the advice, the second two are a reason to question the advice. Under the second two examples you would still morally judge the advice to decide if it should be rejected.

BTW, one of your examples made me think, is there anyway of applying precedent to the works of a supreme being?

You seem to think that a religious person is incapable of examining a religious experience rationally.

Well, my experience would lead me to believe that they are coming to faulty conclusions for some reason. But enough people would disagree for me to leave it open to question.

So a bunch of people self-diagnosing themselves, without any indication whatsoever that their perceptions are actually the same, is somehow empirical proof? Does the color blue look exactly the same to you as it does to me? How would we know?

Can they not establish by similar descriptions that their experiences were similar?

We can't establish what the result of seeing the color blue is, but we can establish a common process, a common experience. One person can create an experiment that can only result in his seeing blue. The other person follows the experiment, and what he sees is blue.

I never said that. In fact, if you read what you quoted, you will see that I said the exact opposite:

Note that examination must still take place. Some of that examination will relate to religion, and some will not.

I'm sorry, but I have reread it and found the same thing. If you hold a religious tenet before morally examining it (holding a tenet without moral examination), it is still moral. I have to disagree and say that any religious tenet held before moral examination is amoral. Only after moral examination can a religious tenet become a moral religions tenet.

But the logical extension of that would be that if morality is, in turn, based in that religion, the morality is not immoral.

Yes, but if the religion is based in morality, then there is no need for the subsequent morals to be based in religion, as they already have an adequate base without the religion.

No it can't. How do I ever know that your perception is the same as mine?

Like I said earlier, replicating the experience and defining whatever perception occurs. Blue may appear to be green to you but as long as we both call it blue, it is blue. We define the process of perceiving, not the result.

This is not the same thing as saying that morality cannot be based in religion, which is what you have seemed to be saying all along.

I don't know if it is a problem with the semantics of personal morality vs. valid morality, but that is what I have been saying all along.

I have stated several times that morality can be established in religion, but only moral examination can cause it to be morally valid.

I'm sorry, but I have reread it and found the same thing. If you hold a religious tenet before morally examining it (holding a tenet without moral examination), it is still moral. I have to disagree and say that any religious tenet held before moral examination is amoral. Only after moral examination can a religious tenet become a moral religions tenet.


So the moral examination, in some mysterious and unexplained way, imbues this tennet with moral qualities?

If, after examination, the tennet is shown to have moral qualities, then these were necessarily there, in the tennet, prior to the examination. The only question is whether you as an individual had accepted the tennet as being moral or not. If you had, then regardless of whether this was in blind acceptance of religious dogma, or through careful introspective deliberation, the tennt had to have had moral force in your life.

The question I would ask is whether moral qualities are such that a tenet can possess them, or whether moral qualities are inherently connected to actions or persons or both.

So the moral examination, in some mysterious and unexplained way, imbues this tennet with moral qualities?

The original question is not whether religious tenets can be moral, it is whether a person is truly moral in accepting morality for the sake of religion.

Sure "Thou shalt not steal" is a moral tenet to follow, but is one actually being moral if he only follows it because it is one of the ten commandments.

If, after examination, the tennet is shown to have moral qualities, then these were necessarily there, in the tennet, prior to the examination. The only question is whether you as an individual had accepted the tennet as being moral or not. If you had, then regardless of whether this was in blind acceptance of religious dogma, or through careful introspective deliberation, the tennt had to have had moral force in your life.

Granted, but behaving morally and being moral are not the same thing. Wal-Mart makes huge amounts of charitable donations every year, but that does not make them a truly moral corporation.

It is not until after this reasonable moral examination that one can be sure that they are acting morally (even afterwards they can't be sure, but they at least get credit for the effort). Prior to that one is holding a moral value negligently, and cannot be considered truly moral.

The question I would ask is whether moral qualities are such that a tenet can possess them, or whether moral qualities are inherently connected to actions or persons or both.

I would say that tenets can possess them, in the sense that they define certain actions as moral.

Otherwise I am a little overwhelmed by the question.

The original question is not whether religious tenets can be moral, it is whether a person is truly moral in accepting morality for the sake of religion.

Sure "Thou shalt not steal" is a moral tenet to follow, but is one actually being moral if he only follows it because it is one of the ten commandments.
A very Kantian approach then. One can only be moral if one is acting out of the duty to be moral? I have to disagree with that inexplicable restriction that our friend from Konnigsberg has bequeathed to us. One is being moral if one acts according to a set of practical rules, rules concerning how to live one's life. The recognition, or reflexive endorsment of such rules gives them the force to constrain our behaviour, but plays no part in making them moral or not.



Granted, but behaving morally and being moral are not the same thing. Wal-Mart makes huge amounts of charitable donations every year, but that does not make them a truly moral corporation.

So morality is not about one action, it is about the collection of actions that constitute the publically visible character of the agent. Wal-Mart is not a moral corporation because the entire set of their actions does not coincide with your view of what morally good behaviour is. One or two isolated actions do not make the man.

It is not until after this reasonable moral examination that one can be sure that they are acting morally (even afterwards they can't be sure, but they at least get credit for the effort). Prior to that one is holding a moral value negligently, and cannot be considered truly moral.
So a person who acts in all respects morally, but does so without reflecting on the moral value of their actions, is amoral? They may well be, but from your point of view, that of the moral evaluator, you can not know this. There is no difference in their behaviour from the truly moral agent who has endorsed every action they make by moral reflection. As such you, the evaluator of the morality of the other can either choose randomly as to which agent you consider to be morally good, or assume that all such agents are either morally lacking (in which case the only moral agents you would accept would be supernatural ones) or that the actions speak for the man, and that the actions are morally good. I know where I stand when faced with this choice. I give the benefit of the doubt.



I would say that tenets can possess them, in the sense that they define certain actions as moral.

Otherwise I am a little overwhelmed by the question.
Moral evaluations, the assessment of good or bad, are made concerning what? The normal response to this is that moral evaluation concerns people and/or their actions. (People being extended to include all self-conscious agents.) The question is whether these evaluations are the evaluation of moral qualities, or whether moral qualities covers a wider range of subjects. I find it difficult to see a tennet of any type as having moral qualities as I see these (in a Humean way) as being allocated to or associated with the concept of character. However there may be an argument for tennets and beliefs having moral qualities, which I a not aware of.

A very Kantian approach then. One can only be moral if one is acting out of the duty to be moral? I have to disagree with that inexplicable restriction that our friend from Konnigsberg has bequeathed to us. One is being moral if one acts according to a set of practical rules, rules concerning how to live one's life. The recognition, or reflexive endorsment of such rules gives them the force to constrain our behaviour, but plays no part in making them moral or not.

I think one must have the duty to the moral to know whether he is being moral or not. I would say the foremost moral duty one has is to analyze his own morality and behavior. If one does not fulfill that duty, he is fulfilling no moral duty. One should think before he does, so to speak.

I would also say that the reflexive endorsement does not determine the morality of the code in any way, but I would say that it determines the morality of the person. It is the acceptance of a morality without examination that is negligent and immoral.

So morality is not about one action, it is about the collection of actions that constitute the publically visible character of the agent. Wal-Mart is not a moral corporation because the entire set of their actions does not coincide with your view of what morally good behaviour is. One or two isolated actions do not make the man.

One or two actions can cast a light upon the nature of the man though.

I guess I would characterize my argument by saying that actions are inherently moral or immoral, but a man is made moral by the justification for his actions.

So a person who acts in all respects morally, but does so without reflecting on the moral value of their actions, is amoral? They may well be, but from your point of view, that of the moral evaluator, you can not know this. There is no difference in their behaviour from the truly moral agent who has endorsed every action they make by moral reflection. As such you, the evaluator of the morality of the other can either choose randomly as to which agent you consider to be morally good, or assume that all such agents are either morally lacking (in which case the only moral agents you would accept would be supernatural ones) or that the actions speak for the man, and that the actions are morally good. I know where I stand when faced with this choice. I give the benefit of the doubt.

Yes, from a viewpoint where all I can measure is the actions, it would be entirely possible for me to mistake those who are obligated to the morality on one's actions and those who are obligated to a code. It may be entirely possible for established moral codes to provide better guidelines than one's own reason. But a drunk driver may make it home while a sober one crashes, it doesn't mean the drunk driver wasn't negligent.

As such, my stance can only be one as a moral evaluater of actions and not people, but it doesn't mean that I cannot define for myself what I consider to be morality.

Moral evaluations, the assessment of good or bad, are made concerning what? The normal response to this is that moral evaluation concerns people and/or their actions. (People being extended to include all self-conscious agents.) The question is whether these evaluations are the evaluation of moral qualities, or whether moral qualities covers a wider range of subjects. I find it difficult to see a tennet of any type as having moral qualities as I see these (in a Humean way) as being allocated to or associated with the concept of character. However there may be an argument for tennets and beliefs having moral qualities, which I a not aware of.

I see what you are saying and wouldn't disagree. I was just saying that tenets can be moral in relation to an action. "Thou shall not steal" is a moral tenet in that it leads to moral action. As an extension of my previous arguments, I guess no tenet could be moral, only rational evaluation is moral.

However, I don't know if it can be moral or not, considering it is just a concept. Haven't thought about it much, to tell the truth, hence my being overwhelmed by the question.

I don't see any reason to accept that. I believe that the spirit is always the limiting factor and that the flesh is actually irrelevant to the equation.


I don't see how that can work. We talk about 'walking in the flesh' versus 'walking in the spirit', and we KNOW we can never PERFECTLY 'walk in the spirit' BECAUSE of the carnal nature of the flesh.

Thus - the flesh IS an inhibition on the spirit. Not entirely unassailable, perhaps, but certainly a limiting factor.

Even in the case of Jesus we have to assume this to be true. Jesus had his flesh moments, just as we. The weakness of the flesh before the arrest, for example.

And yet, once the human flesh was sacrificed, we are left with a vision of Jesus that no longer 'walks in the flesh', do we not?


Perfect. I love it.
With one exception, everything you say after "And the difference is -"
Scripture refers to the 'old flesh' dying, but it is always a metaphor, i don't place any stock in 'old flesh' dying being literally meaningful.

I'm never too certain how to deal with people debating scripture in the CONTEXT of which parts they consider 'literal'.

I'd argue discernment is FAR more important than ANY amount of structured teaching (although that could be helpful)... but it makes it hard to decide how to discuss issues. If the scripture isn't wholly literal, then how do you 'choose' which parts ARE?

Anyway - to try to approach the point - we read in Revelation about a variety of approaches to the final judgements. Some seem to be translated, some seem to remain on earth in an earthly Millennial Kingdom, some seem to be raised from the dead.

The question is - how are those 'raised' embodied? The long dead would be nothing but bones, maybe dust... but that doesn't fit with the imagery we are given... so we are kind of forced to accept a 'new flesh'. And - if the dead are clothed in 'new flesh', it seems likely that the 144,000 etc, who are residing incorruptible... must also be clothed in 'new flesh'.

And, if everyone else is clothed in 'new flesh', why doubt the 'new flesh' of The Lamb?

I think one must have the duty to the moral to know whether he is being moral or not. I would say the foremost moral duty one has is to analyze his own morality and behavior. If one does not fulfill that duty, he is fulfilling no moral duty. One should think before he does, so to speak.

Morality then is a rational internal thing for you. We differ here. For me morality is external and inherently practical. It is about how I live my life, aout what I do and what others around me do.

The requirement to think before I do seems to eliminate natural goodness as morally good. If I help someone in trouble because I feel like it, because it is my way of being, and not because I have considered the action and have judged it to be morally correct then does this make my assistance any lewss morally right? In my view it makes me a morally better person than the one who does the action because it is 'the right thing to do'. Additionally you are running dangerously close to a vicious circle here:
"For 'tis plain fallacy to say, that a virtuoius motive is requisite to render an action honest, and at the same time that a regard to honesty is the motive of the action" (Hume, Treatise on Human Nature, Book 3 Part II Sec I, p.480)
If to be moral one has to consider the action moral to start with, then from where does this moral quality arise? The judgement of something as being moral has to originate externally to that judgement.

I would also say that the reflexive endorsement does not determine the morality of the code in any way, but I would say that it determines the morality of the person. It is the acceptance of a morality without examination that is negligent and immoral.
And undiferenciable from moral and attentive. Motives are personal in the way DEm was describing. They can not be known by the observer.



I guess I would characterize my argument by saying that actions are inherently moral or immoral, but a man is made moral by the justification for his actions.
There is the situation in the RC church wherein a priest may, if he feels threatened when attending someone on their deathbed, grant absolution externally, whilst internally and secretly withholding that absolution. The secret and internal intention of the priest is supposed to be significant. It is supposed to change the act. Now, by extension I can make a promise to you, saying openly that I will keep it, while secretly and internally thinking that I will not do so. As I never intended to keep the promise, no promise ever existed, so in not keeping it I have done nothing wrong!! This is the problem with moral judgements depending on internal states such as justification. If justification is to matter, then it has to be the real justificaton for the acts, not the express ones. So a man who says he acts morally because he is following the code of a religion may be more moral than one who says that he is acting through moral reflection. The code obeying man has chosen that code after al. He has chosen it for his own reasons, ones to do with his internal beliefs and tenets. The one who claims to be acting on moral reflection may simply be trying to 'look good' in the eyes of others. How do you know?

This limits the possible viewpoints to those that measure the actions or the general overall behaviour that reflects a persons character.

Yes, from a viewpoint where all I can measure is the actions, it would be entirely possible for me to mistake those who are obligated to the morality on one's actions and those who are obligated to a code. It may be entirely possible for established moral codes to provide better guidelines than one's own reason. But a drunk driver may make it home while a sober one crashes, it doesn't mean the drunk driver wasn't negligent.
The drunk driver is demonstrably, practicaly wrong. Being drunk is not a matter of self appraisal and or reflexive criticism (I am not drunk if and only if i think or believe that I am drunk), it is a state of physical affairs. The analogy does not hold. It is possible for moral codes to provide morally acceptable guides for behaviour, and those that follow them are acting morally to the degree that those guidelines prescribe moral actions.

Reason, however, plays no part in moral behaviour above and beyond providing alternatives to be chosen between and an instrumental role in showing how to act to obtain your desires. Reason may well tell you that it is morally right to give to those in need rather than buy an Easter egg, but reason is not going to motivate you to do so. Morality is about action, it is not about the relationships that hold between concepts. It is not about true and false, and that is all that reason can give you.

As such, my stance can only be one as a moral evaluater of actions and not people, but it doesn't mean that I cannot define for myself what I consider to be morality.
Even actions you can not evaluate from your stance as you can not know the motivation for the action. To be able to evaluate an action you would not only have to decide whether you would have done that or nt in that situation, but also whether you would have had the same motives for doinfg so. The first you can do, the second you can not.

Morality then is a rational internal thing for you. We differ here. For me morality is external and inherently practical. It is about how I live my life, aout what I do and what others around me do.

How is something external to the person yet practical? I don't think I am reading this correctly.

The requirement to think before I do seems to eliminate natural goodness as morally good. If I help someone in trouble because I feel like it, because it is my way of being, and not because I have considered the action and have judged it to be morally correct then does this make my assistance any lewss morally right? In my view it makes me a morally better person than the one who does the action because it is 'the right thing to do'.

I would say that no one does something that they just feel like. All of our actions are governed by a cost-benefit analysis, regardless of how in-depth it is. Now there can be an accounting for "natural goodness" in biases and weighted decision making, but I am not really sure how to define "natural goodness".

Additionally you are running dangerously close to a vicious circle here:
"For 'tis plain fallacy to say, that a virtuoius motive is requisite to render an action honest, and at the same time that a regard to honesty is the motive of the action" (Hume, Treatise on Human Nature, Book 3 Part II Sec I, p.480)
If to be moral one has to consider the action moral to start with, then from where does this moral quality arise? The judgement of something as being moral has to originate externally to that judgement.

Certainly the motive for the action can be based in the desired results, can't it? More importantly, is that considered external?

If an action can be expected bring about certain results then it can be judged morally on the basis of those expected results. I guess I am avoiding that problem by saying that actions themselves are not inherently moral or immoral and partially contradicting what I said earlier.

And undiferenciable from moral and attentive. Motives are personal in the way DEm was describing. They can not be known by the observer.

An acceptable outside appearance does not negate the moral duty of the individual.

This gets back to the internal vs. external argument, and where I run into problems. I cannot compose my thoughts well enough to put forward a rational explanation for it, but it is somewhere in that splattered mess of ideas I spewed all over the last 15 pages. I just need that catalyst.

There is the situation in the RC church wherein a priest may, if he feels threatened when attending someone on their deathbed, grant absolution externally, whilst internally and secretly withholding that absolution. The secret and internal intention of the priest is supposed to be significant. It is supposed to change the act. Now, by extension I can make a promise to you, saying openly that I will keep it, while secretly and internally thinking that I will not do so. As I never intended to keep the promise, no promise ever existed, so in not keeping it I have done nothing wrong!! This is the problem with moral judgements depending on internal states such as justification. If justification is to matter, then it has to be the real justificaton for the acts, not the express ones. So a man who says he acts morally because he is following the code of a religion may be more moral than one who says that he is acting through moral reflection. The code obeying man has chosen that code after al. He has chosen it for his own reasons, ones to do with his internal beliefs and tenets. The one who claims to be acting on moral reflection may simply be trying to 'look good' in the eyes of others. How do you know?

This is the quote I partially contradicted earlier. I guess now I would say that actions are neither moral or immoral, that the justification is moral or immoral, so that a man is made moral by his justification. It would be impossible for a man to be made moral by his actions if the actions themselves were judged by the results.

Once again that is a blanket external vs. internal statement with no justification, so give me time. And of course upon reading your response to it, you are one step ahead of me as usual.

Now in response, I would say that I don't know if the person is simply trying to 'look good.' I would also say that it is inconsequential to whether someone is actually moral or not. If internal justification is the measure of a man's morality, only the real justification would matter, and expressed justification would be meaningless in the determination. Of course that means that I cannot measure a man's morality, but who am I to measure it in the first place? Were his intentions completely open and honest, I would still have a difficult time classifying his actions as good or bad.

Tell me though, you don't think that the outward appearance of the preist giving absolution makes him moral do you? I would say that this situation places problems on the idea of morality being external as well.

The drunk driver is demonstrably, practicaly wrong. Being drunk is not a matter of self appraisal and or reflexive criticism (I am not drunk if and only if i think or believe that I am drunk), it is a state of physical affairs. The analogy does not hold. It is possible for moral codes to provide morally acceptable guides for behaviour, and those that follow them are acting morally to the degree that those guidelines prescribe moral actions.

The decision to drive is matter of self appraisal, as you only drive home drunk if you think it is acceptable to drive drunk. The person who has been drinking must be negligent in driving home, yet he can make it home, and I will never know the difference. Like it is possible for a drunk to make it home in his car, it is also possible for a moral code to provide acceptable guidelines. But both are taking it on chance, and are negligent because of it.

Reason, however, plays no part in moral behaviour above and beyond providing alternatives to be chosen between and an instrumental role in showing how to act to obtain your desires. Reason may well tell you that it is morally right to give to those in need rather than buy an Easter egg, but reason is not going to motivate you to do so. Morality is about action, it is not about the relationships that hold between concepts. It is not about true and false, and that is all that reason can give you.

I actually hadn't really thought of this before, but you are correct that reason only provide options not motivation, but the same goes for a moral code as well, so I stick with the comparison between moral codes and reason.

Even actions you can not evaluate from your stance as you can not know the motivation for the action. To be able to evaluate an action you would not only have to decide whether you would have done that or nt in that situation, but also whether you would have had the same motives for doinfg so. The first you can do, the second you can not.

And like I said, I am not interested in evaluating another's morality, only trying to show a way for other's to evaluate their own.

He doesn't. He didn't die? Perhaps I missed it. Can you explain how Jesus never died? He was both deprived of life and has died. He fully fits the definition.


Sure, as long as you ignore that little detail that Christians celebrate on Easter Sunday.

But what's more important is that you can hold whatever belief you like, but you cannot claim that I didn't properly use the word. The idea is ludicrous. He is most certainly dead in the way I used the word and I challenge you to PROVE otherwise. If you can't, and we all know you can't, then your point is laughable.

You could say He was dead. That would work. You can't say He is dead, because he didn't stay in death.
I could say, "Jocabia is in elementary school." The fact that you were in elementary school (an assumption, but a safe one) doesn't actually support my claim.

More importantly, you know this.
You know you used the wrong word.
You know I'm calling you on it.
Man up.


I was kidding around. Get a sense of humor.

I've already got two.
Even using both of them, I can't see why you direct the remark to me and not the person that made that kind of remark to you; I might have smirked when I read it if you had, but if that's your sense of humor, then OK.

I don't see how that can work. We talk about 'walking in the flesh' versus 'walking in the spirit', and we KNOW we can never PERFECTLY 'walk in the spirit' BECAUSE of the carnal nature of the flesh.

Thus - the flesh IS an inhibition on the spirit. Not entirely unassailable, perhaps, but certainly a limiting factor.

Even in the case of Jesus we have to assume this to be true. Jesus had his flesh moments, just as we. The weakness of the flesh before the arrest, for example.

And yet, once the human flesh was sacrificed, we are left with a vision of Jesus that no longer 'walks in the flesh', do we not?


I see where you are with that, but it doesn't quite work for me.
When we are 'walking in the spirit' we are able to overcome the flesh.
When we cease to 'walk in the spirit' then we are subject to our fleshly nature.
So, I still see the flesh as an inhibition but the actual limiting factor I see is the spirit.
Jesus would be the ulimate example of this.
Even though He was indeed flesh and subject to weakness of the flesh as you rightly point out, He was still blameless. If flesh was the limiting factor you put it forward as, then Jesus could not have been the blameless sacrifice, and His flesh would have been the reason.

Then, once the flesh is sacrificed, He is resurrected and His resurrected spirit transcends flesh and all of its inhibitions. This seems quite similar to the hints we are given regarding our own resurrection.
So again, I don't see the sacrifice of the flesh as a meaningful event, but the renewing of the spirit is.

That seems much more consistent with the message Jesus proclaimed. It's not so much about sacrifice (althought that is there) as it is about renewing. Too much of organised religion is only about killing or denying our flesh and not about renewing our minds and a fundamental change to our spirit that I believe Christ calls us all to.



I'm never too certain how to deal with people debating scripture in the CONTEXT of which parts they consider 'literal'.

I'd argue discernment is FAR more important than ANY amount of structured teaching (although that could be helpful)... but it makes it hard to decide how to discuss issues. If the scripture isn't wholly literal, then how do you 'choose' which parts ARE?


Well, I believe that first off, it's important to recognise who is literal and who is not before you can ever proceed to debate any scripture.
No one actually believes that scripture is wholly literal.
Some claim to, but what they really mean is that scripture is literal, except for those parts that clearly are not. With the obvious problem arising, "Clear to whom?"

Anyway - to try to approach the point - we read in Revelation about a variety of approaches to the final judgements. Some seem to be translated, some seem to remain on earth in an earthly Millennial Kingdom, some seem to be raised from the dead.

The question is - how are those 'raised' embodied? The long dead would be nothing but bones, maybe dust... but that doesn't fit with the imagery we are given... so we are kind of forced to accept a 'new flesh'. And - if the dead are clothed in 'new flesh', it seems likely that the 144,000 etc, who are residing incorruptible... must also be clothed in 'new flesh'.

And, if everyone else is clothed in 'new flesh', why doubt the 'new flesh' of The Lamb?

I guess because He still bore the wounds?
I don't have any need to reject your idea of The Lamb in new flesh, it works. I just don't see the need to accept it.

<snip>
Can someone actually be moral by themself? I'm not sure.
<snip>
I would suggest that we can only be moral by ourselves, by which I mean within ourselves.

I agree with those who say that it is impossible to truly know the internal motives and justifications of others give. No single action, no matter how moral, will tell you if the person doing it is moral. You can only make that judgment about a person's character after experience gives you enough evidence of their past behavior to predict their future behavior. But even that is no guarantee. How many times are we pleasantly or unpleasantly surprised by the actions of people whose character we thought we knew? This is an empirical view of the matter.

Because it is impossible to know others' motives and justifications, I would say those motives/justifications are irrelevant. Our lives are impacted far more by people's actions than their internal motivations. If I am helped by a moral person or an immoral person, it does not change the impact of the helpful action upon me. The action does not tell me if the actor is moral, and if he is not, that does not make the action less helpful. So, as a practical matter, I would say the actor's motives/justifications are irrelevant to me. I only require people to do the right thing. I don't require them to do it for the right reason.

There is a degree to which each man is an island, in my opinion. The only thing I can judge moral or immoral is myself. And the only person who can know whether I am moral or immoral is me. If this is so, how can we tell right from wrong, moral from immoral? How can we choose our friends? It's no easy trick. As I said, we are often surprised by the people we think we know. And I would say there is no moral constant that guides us every time because morals themselves are made up by people. External moral authorities are not reliable because their authors are self-interested, but so are we, so even personal moral codes are only meaningful to ourselves.

I agree with you, VO, that a person who just apes a set of behaviors because they have been labeled moral by a religion or any other external authority is shirking his responsibility to be the judge of his own actions. After all, lots of horrible actions have been approved as moral by external authorities -- the Inquisition, for instance. The Inquisitors honestly believed that by torturing and executing people they were saving their souls by a method approved as moral by their church in order to achieve a goal set by their religion. Nowadays, just about everyone disagrees with them, including that very church, but in their day, they were the most moral of men. Clearly, external authorities can let us down.

But you seem also to be assuming a kind of moral constant that an individual can use personally to guide them. But how are such moral judgments formed? Where does the measure come from? If it was possible for 1000s of people to believe it was moral to torture and burn heretics, if it is possible for millions of people today to disagree violently over such basic things as social discrimination, why and whether we should preserve the environment, even the limits of our responsibilities to each other, then how can we possibly be confident that any person's moral examination of their actions will actually lead to them doing actions that we consider moral?

The bottom line is that a person's motivations/justifications are irrelevant because (a) we can't really know them (we can only guess), (b) what is done to us matters to us more than why it is done, and (c) moral justifications are not guaranteed to lead to moral actions, i.e. I don't care if the Inquisitor has a moral justification for torturing and burning me.

So why bother to have morals at all? Well, to be honest, I prefer ethics to morals because they are much easier to work with, but whether you go with morals or ethics, they only matter in controlling our own choices and behaviors (in everything from what we do to who we call our friends, and to that extent, they matter a great deal.

Well, yes... you just turned your own metaphor on its head. Obviously a dog does not have moral judgement... but a person who follows a religion, even if they do so slavishly, does.
(Okay, I know I'm coming in on page 30-whatever to respond to something on page 2 without knowing if anyone even remembers when the thread was about this or if any of the original players are still in it -- but it's relevant to me so here goes: )

I think the original post was saying that morality is the responsible choice of an individual, and how can you make a responsible choice if you just follow whatever someone else tells you to do? At various times, various religions have given moral approval to war, torture, murders, discrimination, abandonment of the poor or suffering, terrorism, etc, etc. The Crusades and Inquistion were both considered moral in their times. Some religious leaders today think persecution of gays is moral because it will save their souls from sin.

So who is more moral -- the obedient person who tortures and burns heretics to purify their souls, or the disobedient person who hides unbelievers from the Inquisitors? I think it's very dangerous to rely exclusively on external authorities for one's moral codes.

Having said that, of course a religious person can be moral, but they may also be occasionally disobedient.

No - I'm saying if you operate on a 'code', you are setting yourself up for a fall.

Better to have ideas, and judge each incident on it's own merit.

(The way I se it, even if you make your OWN code, if you 'obey' it... you are demonstrating obedience... not 'morality'.)

I see, then. Can't really respond to this tonight as I have to be up early to catch a flight, but I'll try to get to it tomorrow if I'm somewhere with a working (and free) internet connection.

Sure, as long as you ignore that little detail that Christians celebrate on Easter Sunday.

The Spring Equinox? Not sure what that has to do with it.

You could say He was dead. That would work. You can't say He is dead, because he didn't stay in death.

He is dead in the natural sense of the word. If you can show me any evidence of a physically living Jesus, I'd be happy to take a look at it. In absense of that, I find your word to be of little value, seeing as you've never seen Jesus in the flesh, well, um, EVER.

I could say, "Jocabia is in elementary school." The fact that you were in elementary school (an assumption, but a safe one) doesn't actually support my claim.

Jesus IS dead. He died. His flesh was not resurrected. His spirit was. It has been point out by both GnI and myself that he continued to have mortal wounds (that means wounds that kill you). The continued existence of his wounds indicates that his resurrection was not of the flesh, but of the spirit. The flesh remained dead and only animated by the spirit. He was not healed.

You could say I am a graduate. I am no longer graduating. I went on to further school. But I am most certainly still a graduate. However, I'd like for you to show me what about the definition of dead as I used it and as I quoted it to you says that it is something that only applies temporarily?

More importantly, you know this.
You know you used the wrong word.
You know I'm calling you on it.
Man up.

He is dead. Jesus is dead. I used the appropriate word. Jesus died. His flesh remains dead. Man up and admit you're just being disingenuous. Jesus is dead. Feel free to prove me wrong. You're haven't done so yet. I still wait for evidence that he is currently naturally living.


I've already got two.
Even using both of them, I can't see why you direct the remark to me and not the person that made that kind of remark to you; I might have smirked when I read it if you had, but if that's your sense of humor, then OK.
Because it was funny. Don't laugh then. I don't care. I did.

I guess because He still bore the wounds?
I don't have any need to reject your idea of The Lamb in new flesh, it works. I just don't see the need to accept it.

You see no reason to reject it unless it gives you room to chastise me about the death of his flesh. Here is an admission that you are arguing from your position and that other positions are not one that give you a reason to reject them, except you've done just that.

Hey, but why let a little thing like logic get in the way of a big waste of everyone's time. By all means, continue.

I see where you are with that, but it doesn't quite work for me.
When we are 'walking in the spirit' we are able to overcome the flesh.
When we cease to 'walk in the spirit' then we are subject to our fleshly nature.
So, I still see the flesh as an inhibition but the actual limiting factor I see is the spirit.
Jesus would be the ulimate example of this.
Even though He was indeed flesh and subject to weakness of the flesh as you rightly point out, He was still blameless. If flesh was the limiting factor you put it forward as, then Jesus could not have been the blameless sacrifice, and His flesh would have been the reason.


No... we cannot 'overcome' the flesh. All we can ever do is delay it.

Then, once the flesh is sacrificed, He is resurrected and His resurrected spirit transcends flesh and all of its inhibitions. This seems quite similar to the hints we are given regarding our own resurrection.
So again, I don't see the sacrifice of the flesh as a meaningful event, but the renewing of the spirit is.


Are you denying the Hebrew texts, in order to focus on the Greek? The Lamb was typified in the Hebrew sacrifices, most noticably the sacrifice of an 'only begotten son'... Isaac.

It is of UTMOST importance that blood be spilled. There can BE no purification without it. And we ARE baptised in blood, vicariously.

The sacrifice of flesh isn't an event... it's the event.

That seems much more consistent with the message Jesus proclaimed. It's not so much about sacrifice (althought that is there) as it is about renewing. Too much of organised religion is only about killing or denying our flesh and not about renewing our minds and a fundamental change to our spirit that I believe Christ calls us all to.


Then you are disclaiming the importance of the Vicarious Substitution. You are preaching a version of the Gospel where we are are reborn without the Blood of Calvary.


Well, I believe that first off, it's important to recognise who is literal and who is not before you can ever proceed to debate any scripture.
No one actually believes that scripture is wholly literal.
Some claim to, but what they really mean is that scripture is literal, except for those parts that clearly are not. With the obvious problem arising, "Clear to whom?"


Exactly. There's the problem.


I guess because He still bore the wounds?
I don't have any need to reject your idea of The Lamb in new flesh, it works. I just don't see the need to accept it.

Does he still bear the wounds now?

Does Jesus still bear the bloody marks of thorns on his head? The marks of nails on his wrists? A mortal wound in his body?

Even if you might believe that... I'd argue it is not scripturally supported. Indeed, it seems counter-to what is in scripture.

The death I reference is a physical one. Heaven is not physical, despite your claims. In the ancient scripture there are a lot of references to the body, and it is used different ways, as GnI points out. However, Jesus is not in the flesh as I am in the flesh. That's not an interpretation, that's a fact. Heaven isn't an alternate universe. It's supernatural. In the natural world, Jesus is DEAD, which is what I said. Claims to the contrary are simply silly.

How would anyone know if heaven were physical? You claim it isn't, but on what authority? I hope you don't do so on the basis of science, because that would be silly. I have understood a major point of the gospels was to show that Jesus was ressurected, and so they included the account of him eating fish, etc. But there was something different about his body, since he seemed to be capable of vanishing and appearing at will (and presumeably taking the fish that he had just eaten with him). What does all this mean? Was this account a fabrication? If so, we can discount it. But if it is true, then we have to consider that the resurrected body of Jesus was indeed flesh and blood, but not a body bound to the same laws that our bodies are. Fair enough, I say. His new body is like ours, but different. At any rate, your claims that he is no longer living are wrong. He is alive, physically, but not with the same physical limitations.

Unlike the ancient Greeks, who meticulously divided the supernatural world and the natural work into two separate entities with some sort of division in between, consider the ancient Hebrews who did not. To them, heaven existed in the same reality as earth. But rather than heaven being an extension of earthly reality, earthly reality was an extension of the heavenly one. Their reference to sprituality was not to classify something as supernatural, but as a part of the natural world that we cannot detect with the five senses. Thus, heaven is not in the supernatural. It is in the natural, but not detectable through our five senses ordinarily. At any rate, it is certainly possible for the ressurected body of Jesus to be seated in heaven, in their world view. It may be nonsense to the Greeks, as Paul pointed out, but that would be more of a problem with their world view, not the reality of heaven.


I think most of the Church leaders were not following Christ. Christ would not have been happy with organized religion in my opinion. It puts people in positions to lead through politics and choice rather than simply being good Christians and inspiring others. It appoints fathers and teachers on earth when Jesus said there would be no more. And in the Catholic Church it sits a man in the place of honor just as the pharisees did and just as Jesus lamented. This is why I examine all of the tales of Jesus and not just those chosen by the Church that rejected so much of what he said and did and acted clearly counter to his purpose.

Jesus did say not to call any religious leader 'Father', out of respect for the heavenly Father, but I doubt that he would have had any problem with the appointment of teachers. He did appoint the Apostles. And he certainly seems to have inspired the organisation of the early Church. To rule all of organised religion as false seems to be throwing out the baby with the bath water. Sure, much of the organised stuff might be false, but the are people who are organised into bringing medicine, foods, literacy workers, etc. to many people living in hopeless conditions. When you call all of organised religion false, you are calling into question the good deeds of thousands of Godly people, perhaps people a good deal more Godly than you or I.

They consider the alternatives to obedience - punishment. However, the alternative actions are not considered on their own merit, outside of the carrot/stick mentality - and that is the problem.

And no, unfortunately, humans aren't too intelligent for that. There are many out there who want someone else to lay out the rules for them so that they never have to think. Children are raised, at least at young ages in this way. We hope that they will mature, but not all do.

I agree that a person who cannot consider an choice outside of the carrot/stick mentality does indeed have a problem. However, most religious people I know would consider an action on it's own merit, with the carrot/stick mentality as an additional consideration. The confusion here in this thread seems to be a lack of recognition that every person is bound to the consequences of his actions, wether those actions be good or bad, whether that person is religious or not. Thus to claim that to be religious to to be amoral is silly, in my view.

Like you said, the carrot/stick mentality cannot be all that bad, since we tend to raise out kids that way, in the hopes that one day they are old enough to make their own decisions without needing discipline/rewards from their parents. Perhaps we could say that people who live soley by the carrot/stick mentality are not developed, immature. On the other hand, I know some children who I suspect are morally superior to me. In the area of morals, I suspect that children are capable of being our equals, if not our superiors. Interestingly, I was just reading an essay by C.S. Lewis who was making a case for this very point.



No, having rewards (or punishments) at stakme doesn't not automatically remove morality. It is only when the person is doing the action (or not doing it) because of the reward/punishment, rather than because of considering the action to determine its morality, that no morality is actually involved.

Fair enough. No disagreement with that. But I disagree with anyone who would say that because the religious world view has some inherant carrots and sticks, that one cannot truly be both religious and moral. That would be a silly claim, in my view.


Take 3 people: 2 Christians and an atheist all walking towards street corners where the "little old lady" is about to cross the street. Each has a different scenario:

1) One Christian walks up and waits for the light to change. He doesn't even glance at the lady who might need help. A figure appears and says, "I will give you $1 million dollars if you help that lady across the street. If you do not, I will beat you with a baseball bat." The Christian walks her across the street and gets his million.

2) An atheist walks up to a street corner with a similar situation. He walks the lady across the street with no offers of reward or punishment.

3) A Christian walks up and sees the old lady. He walks her across the street. Someone walks up and gives him $1 million for doing it, but he did it without consideration (or, in this case, even knowledge) that he might get such a reward.

Out of the 3, who has been more moral?

Of course, the last two. Of course, the first one may have more urgent things on his mind, which is possibly happened to me several times. Or he may have been forgetful to help. I'm not arguing that an atheist could not be more generous or kind or 'moral' than a Christian. I personally know some atheists who I would consider better people than some who call themselves Christians, although I realize that 'better' is a dangerous word in this case, and I suspect God sees things differently, perhaps more in relation to one's personal history.

But no one is free of the consequences of his actions, religious or otherwise, therefore we cannot be free of the carrot/stick mentality. And if Grave or anyone else claims this (and believes it), he is only fooling himself, as far as I can see.

Can you resurrect yourself?
I don't think so.


Would you know how?

Because the Bible claims so, and because my personal experience of life is consistent with a living Christ.


We have no experience of resurrection. We can know almost nothing about the NATURE of the flesh of Jesus AFTER the resurrection, because we have no frame of reference.

Our knowledge comes to us from the scriptures. Apart from that, you are right, we know almost nothing about the nature of the body of Jesus after the resurrection. The only other source is our imaginations.


What we CAN discern about it, makes the resurrected body of Christ somewhat different to the incarnation.


Not quite sure what you mean here. If you are asserting that the Biblical account gives us some indication that the body of Jesus was different before and after death and resurrection, then I would agree.


Well, first - just let me say that compromise isn't a bad thing. I would certainly have no qualms about compromise with someone I respect the way I respect Jocabia.

Fair enough. Good for you.


Regarding spiritual issues... we seem to have followed similar paths, to similar conclusions. The only noticable difference is a small one - or a HUGE one, depending on your view... a simple matter of whether our paths left us as believers, or not.

I find it amusing that you suggested that the difference between believing and not believing might be a small difference, almost as it if were barely noticeable. Your other suggestion, that is a HUGE difference does fit better, I think. Because Jesus made some very strong claims that rested on his deity. How could he forgive sin if he were not God?


But - I have yet to work out why you find it 'illogical' that an Atheist and Christian should agree?

I have no problem with you two agreeing on some things, but I was referring to your statement about him being capable of fully supporting your arguments in your absence from this forum. I suppose he could support some of your arguments, but in order to support them all (other than playing the devil's advocate), he would have to compromise his belief in Jesus as God. If he wants to believe that Jesus isn't God, fair enough, that's his cup of tea, but if he does so BECAUSE he wants to agree with you (and not another better reason) than he is compromising in a way that isn't terribly logical, in my view.

How would anyone know if heaven were physical? You claim it isn't, but on what authority? I hope you don't do so on the basis of science, because that would be silly. I have understood a major point of the gospels was to show that Jesus was ressurected, and so they included the account of him eating fish, etc. But there was something different about his body, since he seemed to be capable of vanishing and appearing at will (and presumeably taking the fish that he had just eaten with him). What does all this mean? Was this account a fabrication? If so, we can discount it. But if it is true, then we have to consider that the resurrected body of Jesus was indeed flesh and blood, but not a body bound to the same laws that our bodies are. Fair enough, I say. His new body is like ours, but different. At any rate, your claims that he is no longer living are wrong. He is alive, physically, but not with the same physical limitations.

Unlike the ancient Greeks, who meticulously divided the supernatural world and the natural work into two separate entities with some sort of division in between, consider the ancient Hebrews who did not. To them, heaven existed in the same reality as earth. But rather than heaven being an extension of earthly reality, earthly reality was an extension of the heavenly one. Their reference to sprituality was not to classify something as supernatural, but as a part of the natural world that we cannot detect with the five senses. Thus, heaven is not in the supernatural. It is in the natural, but not detectable through our five senses ordinarily. At any rate, it is certainly possible for the ressurected body of Jesus to be seated in heaven, in their world view. It may be nonsense to the Greeks, as Paul pointed out, but that would be more of a problem with their world view, not the reality of heaven.


Do you even realise you are conflating millennia of religious evolution? The very latest (i.e. post-Daniel) Hebrews may have had ideas about a 'heaven on earth'... but the earlier Hebrews had no such ideas. The ideas of even an 'earth-like heaven' didn't arrive on the scene until after the Hebrews began interaction with the Greeks... indeed, not until the Greek notion of the Elysian Field became 'common-ised'. (By which I mean, if you look at early Greek 'religion'... you couldn't get in to the Elysian Field, unless you were a God or Demi-God being... or had a very special 'invitation'.


Indeed, in the scripture, the end of life is considered pretty much the end...in the earliest Hebrew. The concept they used was 'sheol'... and it was (originally) merely a way of describing being dead.... 'sheol' is the grave. And, everyone ends up there, good or bad.

Parallels are Tartarus and Hades, although that significance was only gained AFTER the Hebrew faith met the Greek.

So - in a way you are right... for most of the history of Hebrew theology, 'heaven' was physical... because they recognised death as final, and you ended up in the dirt.


Jesus did say not to call any religious leader 'Father', out of respect for the heavenly Father, but I doubt that he would have had any problem with the appointment of teachers. He did appoint the Apostles. And he certainly seems to have inspired the organisation of the early Church. To rule all of organised religion as false seems to be throwing out the baby with the bath water. Sure, much of the organised stuff might be false, but the are people who are organised into bringing medicine, foods, literacy workers, etc. to many people living in hopeless conditions. When you call all of organised religion false, you are calling into question the good deeds of thousands of Godly people, perhaps people a good deal more Godly than you or I.

It is the 'nature' of Organised Religion that Jesus would have objected to. Apostles were to spread the word, not to tell people how to interpret it. The modern church is a mirror for the Pharisee... and we have record of his opinions on that matter.

But no one is free of the consequences of his actions, religious or otherwise, therefore we cannot be free of the carrot/stick mentality. And if Grave or anyone else claims this (and believes it), he is only fooling himself, as far as I can see.

Coming dangerously close to calling me a fool for my (lack of) religion, my friend... not always a good tactic.

Being 'free' of consequence is not the same as making decisions without 'consideration' of (certain) consequences.

Looking at Dem's people on the street:

1) A Christian sees an old lady who needs help. He crosses the street to help her because it says in the Apocrypha to the Book of Nebetnebot "Thou Shalt Help Old Ladies". And he doesn't dare go against scripture.

2) A Christian sees an old lady who needs help. He crosses the street to help her, because she looks like she needs help... and it just seems 'right'.

3) An Atheist sees an old lady who needs help. He crosses the street to help her because he hopes for a reward.

4) An Atheist sees an old lady who needs help. He crosses the street to help her, because she looks like she needs help... and it just seems 'right'.

There is a clear parallel between 1 and 3 - the fear of reprisal and the hope for reward.

There is a clear parallel between 2 and 4 - actions carried out that WILL have consequence (in this world, and/or beyond)... but that is not WHY those actions were carried out.

Because the Bible claims so, and because my personal experience of life is consistent with a living Christ.


The Bible claims so? I don't recall the Bible ever saying we have the capacity to resurrect ourselves...?


Our knowledge comes to us from the scriptures. Apart from that, you are right, we know almost nothing about the nature of the body of Jesus after the resurrection. The only other source is our imaginations.


And even with the scripture, we still know practically nothing about the nature of resurrection.


Not quite sure what you mean here. If you are asserting that the Biblical account gives us some indication that the body of Jesus was different before and after death and resurrection, then I would agree.


Yes - that's about what I was saying. There are still those on this thread who consider it to be less than evident, however... so I reassert.


Fair enough. Good for you.


Thank you, I think. I'm a little surprised that you find 'compromise' to be... well, you make it seem almost negative.


I find it amusing that you suggested that the difference between believing and not believing might be a small difference, almost as it if were barely noticeable. Your other suggestion, that is a HUGE difference does fit better, I think. Because Jesus made some very strong claims that rested on his deity. How could he forgive sin if he were not God?


Jesus didn't forgive sins. Jesus was a 'conduit' to God. God forgave sins.

The difference IS small. Jocabia and I seem to have very similar responses to reading scripture... we seem to arrive at many of the same 'places'.

The difference is - he believes it, and I don't... that's a tiny difference.

No - to YOU that's a huge difference, and I said that... but it's ONLY a huge difference if the question is 'belief'. If, instead, you were asking about the validity of Paul as a witness to Jesus' earthly ministry... you'd probably get an almost identical reply from either of us.


I have no problem with you two agreeing on some things, but I was referring to your statement about him being capable of fully supporting your arguments in your absence from this forum. I suppose he could support some of your arguments, but in order to support them all (other than playing the devil's advocate), he would have to compromise his belief in Jesus as God. If he wants to believe that Jesus isn't God, fair enough, that's his cup of tea, but if he does so BECAUSE he wants to agree with you (and not another better reason) than he is compromising in a way that isn't terribly logical, in my view.

I've noticed that Jocabia and I disagree on a few things. That is to be expected. But, there are many areas where I honestly believe Jocabia could either express my thoughts on a matter, or mirror them directly with his own.

You seem to think that Jocabia couldn't ARGUE that some situation might 'be so' without believing it... which makes no sense. It's a technique of debate to put yourself inside an argument... to make assumptions.

Thus - when we debate scripture WITHIN the context, I debate it as though I believed it to be true. I don't make my arguments and then qualify them with "Of course, I don't believe any of this, because the Bible is bullshit".

The Spring Equinox? Not sure what that has to do with it.


Feigning ignorance now to avoid a point you can't address now?
I did specify Christians, Christians don't celebrate the Vernal Equinox regardless of the pagan origins of Easter.


He is dead in the natural sense of the word. If you can show me any evidence of a physically living Jesus, I'd be happy to take a look at it. In absense of that, I find your word to be of little value, seeing as you've never seen Jesus in the flesh, well, um, EVER.


Fine, let's play this silly game.
If Jesus died, then there is a body.
Show me the body.
You can even use a time machine if you'd like.


Jesus IS dead. He died. His flesh was not resurrected. His spirit was. It has been point out by both GnI and myself that he continued to have mortal wounds (that means wounds that kill you). The continued existence of his wounds indicates that his resurrection was not of the flesh, but of the spirit. The flesh remained dead and only animated by the spirit. He was not healed.


Right.
So Jesus didn't actually resurrect, he was a re-animated corpse.
I recall the scrtiptures that support that, I really do.

Are you actually nothing but a troll?

Feigning ignorance now to avoid a point you can't address now?
I did specify Christians, Christians don't celebrate the Vernal Equinox regardless of the pagan origins of Easter.


Actually, most of them do. They might not admit it out loud, but they eat their chocolate eggs, and they play egg hunts with the kids... they really are 'celebrating' the pagan festival of fertility. They just don't talk about it.


Fine, let's play this silly game.
If Jesus died, then there is a body.
Show me the body.
You can even use a time machine if you'd like.


Logical fallacy. By this logic Hitler is still alive, Moses is still alive, Columbus might or might not be, Julius Caesar probably is, Lord Lucan is...

'Not being able to find the body' is no guarantee of life.


Right.
So Jesus didn't actually resurrect, he was a re-animated corpse.
I recall the scrtiptures that support that, I really do.

Are you actually nothing but a troll?

Actually - re-animated corpse is entirely missing the point.

That body died. That body wasn't re-animated.

What walked the earth AFTER the resurrection wasn't THAT body.

I'm not sure if true morality can take place unless religion is absent. I behave a certain way because I fell it's the right thing to do. No threat from a diety or threat of a screwed up afterlife has any effect on my behavior. It's me and me alone.

I'm not sure if true morality can take place unless religion is absent. I behave a certain way because I fell it's the right thing to do. No threat from a diety or threat of a screwed up afterlife has any effect on my behavior. It's me and me alone.

That's what I'm thinking... for 'true' morality, it has to be as subjective a process as possible, I think. I've seen some good arguments that those within a religion CAN make those same decisions, but I have to wonder if you can ever shake of the looming presence of divine punishment...

No... we cannot 'overcome' the flesh. All we can ever do is delay it.

I don't believe that. For me to accept it, you'd nee to back that up.

Are you denying the Hebrew texts, in order to focus on the Greek? The Lamb was typified in the Hebrew sacrifices, most noticably the sacrifice of an 'only begotten son'... Isaac.

It is of UTMOST importance that blood be spilled. There can BE no purification without it. And we ARE baptised in blood, vicariously.

The sacrifice of flesh isn't an event... it's the event.


I'm not denying it at all.
Even the Hebrew texts tell us that God desires obedience rather than sacrifice through the Psalmist.
Sacrifice wasn't the goal, a changed people was. So long as the focus was, "Do what you will, but pay the sacrifice", it wasn't having the intended effect.
That is why I believe that Christ spent a significant portion of His ministry explaining to His Jewish brethren that they lacked the internal changes that God desired even while they externally fulfilled the Law and it's sacrifices.

I don't believe the sacrfice is THE event, it's just the "Grand Opening". Sure, it's required, but it's only the beginning, not the ending.

Then you are disclaiming the importance of the Vicarious Substitution. You are preaching a version of the Gospel where we are are reborn without the Blood of Calvary.


No, absolutely not. I'm not disclaiming it, I'm just down playing it.
It's the seminal event, not the Ultimate Event that organised religion makes it out to be, whether that's the RC version that continually uses confession to claim the atonement or the Evangelicals that proclaim "once saved, always saved" and seem to live a life of sin just so that 'Grace' can abound.


Does he still bear the wounds now?

Does Jesus still bear the bloody marks of thorns on his head? The marks of nails on his wrists? A mortal wound in his body?

Even if you might believe that... I'd argue it is not scripturally supported. Indeed, it seems counter-to what is in scripture.

I don't see any reason to say he does not still bear the wounds.
If you believe that is counter to what is in scripture, please share, because I'm not recalling it.

You see no reason to reject it unless it gives you room to chastise me about the death of his flesh. Here is an admission that you are arguing from your position and that other positions are not one that give you a reason to reject them, except you've done just that.

Hey, but why let a little thing like logic get in the way of a big waste of everyone's time. By all means, continue.


GnI is telling me Jesus has new flesh, not that Jesus is dead as you continue to.

I'd say, "Nice try" but in seriousness, it wasn't.

Actually, most of them do. They might not admit it out loud, but they eat their chocolate eggs, and they play egg hunts with the kids... they really are 'celebrating' the pagan festival of fertility. They just don't talk about it.


I'm sure that Christians in America use fireworks on July 4th. it still doesn't make it a Christian celebration.
Because some Chrisitians live in cultures that still have vestiges and traditions from non-Christian sources doesn't make them Chrisitan.

Jocabia was aware that I was referring to the Resurrection, which is what Chrisitains celebrate, and goes to my point about Jesus not being dead.
Deliberately missing the point is beneath what I've come to expect from you in this thread.

Logical fallacy. By this logic Hitler is still alive, Moses is still alive, Columbus might or might not be, Julius Caesar probably is, Lord Lucan is...

'Not being able to find the body' is no guarantee of life.


That's why I gave the time machine option. It's a mental exercise, not a forensic one, we have reports of the death of all of those figures, and one presumes that with a fictional time machine, one could point to the body.

Keeping our presumption that the Christian story is true, even with a Time Machine, no body can be found.

So, if there is no body, how can there be death?

Actually - re-animated corpse is entirely missing the point.

That body died. That body wasn't re-animated.

What walked the earth AFTER the resurrection wasn't THAT body.

I understand what you're saying fine, we have several posts back and forth on that. I never implied you believe in the zombie Jesus concept. What you're saying is still not "dead" as Jocabia keeps insisting.

He mis-spoke in the heat of a post, and is painting himself deeper into a corner out of stubborness now. I'll give him as much paint to continue to do so as he'll take.

I don't believe that. For me to accept it, you'd nee to back that up.


If we could overcome it, we'd not have to continue to fight it. It's like the difference between propitiation and forgiveness.


I'm not denying it at all.
Even the Hebrew texts tell us that God desires obedience rather than sacrifice through the Psalmist.
Sacrifice wasn't the goal, a changed people was. So long as the focus was, "Do what you will, but pay the sacrifice", it wasn't having the intended effect.
That is why I believe that Christ spent a significant portion of His ministry explaining to His Jewish brethren that they lacked the internal changes that God desired even while they externally fulfilled the Law and it's sacrifices.


The gaol wasn't "Do what you will"... it was "MY will be done"... contracted even... but with 'repair' clauses for when things went wrong.

I fear you have 'bought in' too much to the modern 'church' ideas of the Hebrew faith... as viewed THROUGH Christianity.


I don't believe the sacrfice is THE event, it's just the "Grand Opening". Sure, it's required, but it's only the beginning, not the ending.

No, absolutely not. I'm not disclaiming it, I'm just down playing it.
It's the seminal event, not the Ultimate Event that organised religion makes it out to be, whether that's the RC version that continually uses confession to claim the atonement or the Evangelicals that proclaim "once saved, always saved" and seem to live a life of sin just so that 'Grace' can abound.


Could we be saved without the Vicarious Substitution?


I don't see any reason to say he does not still bear the wounds.
If you believe that is counter to what is in scripture, please share, because I'm not recalling it.

If he still bears the wounds, they are not mentioned at all in the scripture.

I'm sure that Christians in America use fireworks on July 4th. it still doesn't make it a Christian celebration.
Because some Chrisitians live in cultures that still have vestiges and traditions from non-Christian sources doesn't make them Chrisitan.


Which is irrelevent to what you said. You said Christians didn't celebrate pagan festivals.


Jocabia was aware that I was referring to the Resurrection, which is what Chrisitains celebrate, and goes to my point about Jesus not being dead.
Deliberately missing the point is beneath what I've come to expect from you in this thread.


I'm not deliberately missing the point.

In roder for there to BE a resurrection, someone has to REALLY be dead.


That's why I gave the time machine option. It's a mental exercise, not a forensic one, we have reports of the death of all of those figures, and one presumes that with a fictional time machine, one could point to the body.

Keeping our presumption that the Christian story is true, even with a Time Machine, no body can be found.

So, if there is no body, how can there be death?


The body COULD be found, if I went back to the day the body was laid in the tomb.

(Also - I have to say, we have no official confirmation of the deaths of either Hitler or Lucan).


I understand what you're saying fine, we have several posts back and forth on that. I never implied you believe in the zombie Jesus concept. What you're saying is still not "dead" as Jocabia keeps insisting.

He mis-spoke in the heat of a post, and is painting himself deeper into a corner out of stubborness now. I'll give him as much paint to continue to do so as he'll take.

No - Jocabia and I are actually making the same point... we are just heading at it from different points.

The actual, human flesh of Jesus IS dead. Jesus DID die on the cross.

What is left is not the same body. It is a 'new flesh', that is not of the earth.

So - Jesus is resurrected in a new flesh. Jesus is immortal and incorruptible. Thus - Jesus is no longer carnal.

Thus - Jesus IS dead. But he has 'moved on' to something else.

GnI is telling me Jesus has new flesh, not that Jesus is dead as you continue to.

I'd say, "Nice try" but in seriousness, it wasn't.

Jesus is physically dead. He is talking about Jesus having new flesh in the return.

How would anyone know if heaven were physical? You claim it isn't, but on what authority? I hope you don't do so on the basis of science, because that would be silly. I have understood a major point of the gospels was to show that Jesus was ressurected, and so they included the account of him eating fish, etc. But there was something different about his body, since he seemed to be capable of vanishing and appearing at will (and presumeably taking the fish that he had just eaten with him). What does all this mean? Was this account a fabrication? If so, we can discount it. But if it is true, then we have to consider that the resurrected body of Jesus was indeed flesh and blood, but not a body bound to the same laws that our bodies are. Fair enough, I say. His new body is like ours, but different. At any rate, your claims that he is no longer living are wrong. He is alive, physically, but not with the same physical limitations.

Unlike the ancient Greeks, who meticulously divided the supernatural world and the natural work into two separate entities with some sort of division in between, consider the ancient Hebrews who did not. To them, heaven existed in the same reality as earth. But rather than heaven being an extension of earthly reality, earthly reality was an extension of the heavenly one. Their reference to sprituality was not to classify something as supernatural, but as a part of the natural world that we cannot detect with the five senses. Thus, heaven is not in the supernatural. It is in the natural, but not detectable through our five senses ordinarily. At any rate, it is certainly possible for the ressurected body of Jesus to be seated in heaven, in their world view. It may be nonsense to the Greeks, as Paul pointed out, but that would be more of a problem with their world view, not the reality of heaven.



Jesus did say not to call any religious leader 'Father', out of respect for the heavenly Father, but I doubt that he would have had any problem with the appointment of teachers. He did appoint the Apostles. And he certainly seems to have inspired the organisation of the early Church. To rule all of organised religion as false seems to be throwing out the baby with the bath water. Sure, much of the organised stuff might be false, but the are people who are organised into bringing medicine, foods, literacy workers, etc. to many people living in hopeless conditions. When you call all of organised religion false, you are calling into question the good deeds of thousands of Godly people, perhaps people a good deal more Godly than you or I.

How lame. I am always amused by this. My use of the word physical here is as a part of the natural world. It isn't. It's that simple. The truth is I couldn't be arsed to read the rest, because you didn't start out very strong.

You however should read the scriptures because your claims and they don't match.

Feigning ignorance now to avoid a point you can't address now?
I did specify Christians, Christians don't celebrate the Vernal Equinox regardless of the pagan origins of Easter.

Oh, you mean we actually have to listen to what people mean by their statements and not just twist them to what we want them to say. Hmmmm... perhaps you should try this when you look at my reference to dead, Mr. Strawman. I knew what you meant, just as you knew what I meant when I said Jesus was dead, but you chose to create a silly argument over a strawman. I just let you help illustrate how pointless such a thing is.

Now, Christans mix the equinox celebration with the resurrection of Christ. You are clearly talking about the latter part and I knew that. You knew what I meant when I said Jesus was dead, yet you continue to argue otherwise. I find the entire line of though useless. Thank you for agreeing.


Fine, let's play this silly game.
If Jesus died, then there is a body.
Show me the body.
You can even use a time machine if you'd like.

Show me the body of Moses. Caesar. We don't have a time machine, so you're being silly. I'm saying if Jesus is a living being in the natural world, certainly there should be evidence of this. I'll wait. Or perhaps you are simply being disingenuous when you say I didn't use the word dead properly.

Right.
So Jesus didn't actually resurrect, he was a re-animated corpse.
I recall the scrtiptures that support that, I really do.

Are you actually nothing but a troll?
GnI disagree to an extent here. The body was gone. The mortal wounds were still there. You have accepted that both could be found in scripture. Mortal means wounds that you cannot live with. His body cannot be living with mortal wounds it's a contradiction in definition.

I'm sorry that your ignorance of scripture offends you, but there is way to fix that open it up and read it instead of arguing a strawman.

GnI disagree to an extent here. The body was gone. The mortal wounds were still there.

I agree the mortal wounds were still there WHEN he appeared to Thomas.

I don't see any reason to believe they STILL are.

Do you even realise you are conflating millennia of religious evolution? The very latest (i.e. post-Daniel) Hebrews may have had ideas about a 'heaven on earth'... but the earlier Hebrews had no such ideas. The ideas of even an 'earth-like heaven' didn't arrive on the scene until after the Hebrews began interaction with the Greeks... indeed, not until the Greek notion of the Elysian Field became 'common-ised'. (By which I mean, if you look at early Greek 'religion'... you couldn't get in to the Elysian Field, unless you were a God or Demi-God being... or had a very special 'invitation'.

To my knowledge, the Hebrews didn't think that heaven was on earth, or even that heaven was like earth, with the same physical properties. My point was that they didn't divide heaven and earth into supernatural and natural. Thus heaven and earth are quite different perhaps, but the resurrected body of Jesus would have no problem sitting in heaven (which was my original point).
It's true that the early Hebrews appeared to have an 'underdeveloped' view of heaven, and some people claim that they learned about 'heaven' from the Greeks, but that is merely a claim. If Jesus was God, he didn't need Greek mythology to tell his disciples that there were many rooms in his Father's house.



Indeed, in the scripture, the end of life is considered pretty much the end...in the earliest Hebrew. The concept they used was 'sheol'... and it was (originally) merely a way of describing being dead.... 'sheol' is the grave. And, everyone ends up there, good or bad.


That is your interpretation. That Moses didn't write about the afterlife does not mean that Abraham and the others didn't believe it. More likely is that they didn't know much about it, and in contrast to the ancient religions of the time e.g. Egyptian, they wanted to avoid an 'unhealthy obsession' with it.


Parallels are Tartarus and Hades, although that significance was only gained AFTER the Hebrew faith met the Greek.

That doesn't necessarily have any bearing on the Hebrew thought.


So - in a way you are right... for most of the history of Hebrew theology, 'heaven' was physical... because they recognised death as final, and you ended up in the dirt.

Not most and possibly none. And they certainly distinguished between the spirit of an animal and that of a human. Sheol was hardly another name for dirt. It was seen as a place for the collection of departed souls. Perhaps they didn't know much more about it.



It is the 'nature' of Organised Religion that Jesus would have objected to. Apostles were to spread the word, not to tell people how to interpret it. The modern church is a mirror for the Pharisee... and we have record of his opinions on that matter.

There isn't one nature of organised religion, there are many natures, some good and some not. Some people do a very good work in the name of organised religion. Quit your gross generalising.


Coming dangerously close to calling me a fool for my (lack of) religion, my friend... not always a good tactic.

If I called you a fool (I didn't), it would not be because you are not religious, but because you would be making claims in which I reckon any reasonable person ought to know better.


Being 'free' of consequence is not the same as making decisions without 'consideration' of (certain) consequences.

Looking at Dem's people on the street:

1) A Christian sees an old lady who needs help. He crosses the street to help her because it says in the Apocrypha to the Book of Nebetnebot "Thou Shalt Help Old Ladies". And he doesn't dare go against scripture.

2) A Christian sees an old lady who needs help. He crosses the street to help her, because she looks like she needs help... and it just seems 'right'.

3) An Atheist sees an old lady who needs help. He crosses the street to help her because he hopes for a reward.

4) An Atheist sees an old lady who needs help. He crosses the street to help her, because she looks like she needs help... and it just seems 'right'.

There is a clear parallel between 1 and 3 - the fear of reprisal and the hope for reward.

There is a clear parallel between 2 and 4 - actions carried out that WILL have consequence (in this world, and/or beyond)... but that is not WHY those actions were carried out.

How on earth can you claim to know the personal WHY of anyone? In this world, we usually suspect that every effect has a cause. A person usually doesn't randomly help someone else in need without a cause. Perhaps he isn't aware of his motive, or in the 'back of his mind' he is thinking that one day he will be in need himself and hopes that someone will be kind to him. In fact, we have never ever found a single instance of an effect that is without a cause (although there are plenty of effects in which we don't know the cause). Science depends on the assumption (for every effect there is a cause).

Thus, when someone helps another person, there is always a motive, regardless of whether the person is religious or not, regardless of whether that motive is good or not.

Consider the Christian who wants to help someone because he knows that action would please God. Pleasing God, then, is his reward, because he loves God, and not because he is trying to get another 'brownie point'. Is such a Christian a moral person?

While much of religion is focussed on gathering 'brownie points', true religion consists of being motivated by the love of God, reward enough in itself.


The Bible claims so? I don't recall the Bible ever saying we have the capacity to resurrect ourselves...?


Sorry, I got my wires crossed. I was thinking that you were referring to the resurrection of Jesus. But now I see that you were referring to the concept of me resurrecting myself. In the case of Jesus, however, he was apparently dead but resurrected by God the Father, not Himself. Of course, the Bible does not talk about us being able to resurrect ourselves. That is an absurd notion.


Jesus didn't forgive sins. Jesus was a 'conduit' to God. God forgave sins.


I think that the Pharisees got upset about Jesus claiming to forgiving sins, because that would make him God, which is kinda the reason why they wanted him dead. If Jesus is God, then he certainly did forgive sins.


The difference IS small. Jocabia and I seem to have very similar responses to reading scripture... we seem to arrive at many of the same 'places'.

The difference is - he believes it, and I don't... that's a tiny difference.

I concede that it may not be a big difference to you, but from the point of view of a believer, it's a huge difference. More important than life itself.


No - to YOU that's a huge difference, and I said that... but it's ONLY a huge difference if the question is 'belief'. If, instead, you were asking about the validity of Paul as a witness to Jesus' earthly ministry... you'd probably get an almost identical reply from either of us..

Then my issue would be more with Jocabia than with you. If you claim that you do not believe, you can say what you like about Paul or any other person in Scripture (of course if you say silly things, others may recognised that silliness and inform you of their opinion). But if anyone claims to believe in Christ as the Lamb of God, and then assumes that his knowledge of God holds more weight than that of the Apostle Paul's, I would say he has got a problem.

How lame. I am always amused by this. My use of the word physical here is as a part of the natural world.

Then what would you call the part of the natural world (like the human soul) which gets to interact with God?


The truth is I couldn't be arsed to read the rest, because you didn't start out very strong.


Then perhaps you are the lame one.


You however should read the scriptures because your claims and they don't match.

Rather than throw such a statement out there, perhaps you would care to back that up with a decent argument. Otherwise you really are lame.

If we could overcome it, we'd not have to continue to fight it. It's like the difference between propitiation and forgiveness.


Going to have to agree to disagree. I don't view it as you do and we're discussing nothing more than opinion.

The gaol wasn't "Do what you will"... it was "MY will be done"... contracted even... but with 'repair' clauses for when things went wrong.

I didn't mean the goal was, "Do what you will", I mean that is what it often degenerates to.

I fear you have 'bought in' too much to the modern 'church' ideas of the Hebrew faith... as viewed THROUGH Christianity.


We're discussing Christianity. So of course it is viewed through Christianity, particularly when Jesus taught, "You have heard... But I say..."

Could we be saved without the Vicarious Substitution?


Without being aware of it? Or without it ever occuring?
If their latter, then I'd say no.

If he still bears the wounds, they are not mentioned at all in the scripture.

Where in the scripture would they be mentioned?
They are mentioned during the times Jesus is written about after the resurrection.

Which is irrelevent to what you said. You said Christians didn't celebrate pagan festivals.


It's not irrelevant. I'm differentiating between Chritian festivals and festivals that Christians participate in.
None of which has anything to do with the conversation except for Jocabia trying to dodge the Resurrection.

I'm not deliberately missing the point.

In roder for there to BE a resurrection, someone has to REALLY be dead.


In order for there to BE a resurrection, someone dead has to REALLY be NOT dead.

The body COULD be found, if I went back to the day the body was laid in the tomb.

(Also - I have to say, we have no official confirmation of the deaths of either Hitler or Lucan).



But if you go back to the Sunday, the body is not there.
Why?
Resurrection.
Therefore, Jesus is NO longer dead.
If we shadow him until ascension, He nevers dies.
So, unless you make the absurd and unsupported claim that He died after ascending, Jesus is not dead.

(aside - do you doubt that with the aid of a Time Travel Booth 6000 we could ascertain the time, manner and place of their deaths?)


No - Jocabia and I are actually making the same point... we are just heading at it from different points.

The actual, human flesh of Jesus IS dead. Jesus DID die on the cross.

What is left is not the same body. It is a 'new flesh', that is not of the earth.

So - Jesus is resurrected in a new flesh. Jesus is immortal and incorruptible. Thus - Jesus is no longer carnal.

Thus - Jesus IS dead. But he has 'moved on' to something else.

So, your contention is that someone can be resurrected and dead at the same time?
I find that almost painful to type in it is so illogical.

Sorry for the dela VO, but Sleep and RL have to happen

How is something external to the person yet practical? I don't think I am reading this correctly.

Practical, in these terms means to do with action, not theory (- it is opposed to theoretical, not impractical). As such any practical philosophy has to be concerned with the external actions, the practice of the beliefs and ideals in life, contrasted to the internal and theoretical approval or denial of them.

I would say that no one does something that they just feel like. All of our actions are governed by a cost-benefit analysis, regardless of how in-depth it is. Now there can be an accounting for "natural goodness" in biases and weighted decision making, but I am not really sure how to define "natural goodness".

I assure you that the average three year old does not do a cost benefit analysis when they chose a chocolate over a lettuce leaf. Nor does the average adult. We act on our desires. There are plenty of examples in ecveryone's life where they have done something despite knowing that this action was not to their long term benefit and very often not even to their short term benefit. The 'yeah it was stupid, and wasn't even as much fun as I hoped' syndrome. We do not, and can not act on our reason.

Certainly the motive for the action can be based in the desired results, can't it? More importantly, is that considered external?
"The desired results" is just a way saying we act on desire. No desire is not external, it is internal. The results are external yes, but whether those were what was desired, whether they correspond with our desire depends on the purely internal state that desire is.

If an action can be expected bring about certain results then it can be judged morally on the basis of those expected results. I guess I am avoiding that problem by saying that actions themselves are not inherently moral or immoral and partially contradicting what I said earlier.
So now a set of circumstances in the world, a collection of facts, has a moral value. The house over the road being blue is morally better than it being green. This is obviously not the case, but if not then what facts have moral value and what facts do not - and more importantly why do some facts have moral value?



An acceptable outside appearance does not negate the moral duty of the individual.
But it is all that we have to judge from. This leads to an examination of what is being done when we make moral appraisals. Is morality our own appraisal of ourselves, or is it our appraisal of others, or (and this is what I think it is) is it our opinion of how others view us.

This gets back to the internal vs. external argument, and where I run into problems. I cannot compose my thoughts well enough to put forward a rational explanation for it, but it is somewhere in that splattered mess of ideas I spewed all over the last 15 pages. I just need that catalyst.

This is the quote I partially contradicted earlier. I guess now I would say that actions are neither moral or immoral, that the justification is moral or immoral, so that a man is made moral by his justification. It would be impossible for a man to be made moral by his actions if the actions themselves were judged by the results.

Once again that is a blanket external vs. internal statement with no justification, so give me time. And of course upon reading your response to it, you are one step ahead of me as usual.

Now in response, I would say that I don't know if the person is simply trying to 'look good.' I would also say that it is inconsequential to whether someone is actually moral or not. If internal justification is the measure of a man's morality, only the real justification would matter, and expressed justification would be meaningless in the determination. Of course that means that I cannot measure a man's morality, but who am I to measure it in the first place? Were his intentions completely open and honest, I would still have a difficult time classifying his actions as good or bad.
If you are not qualified to measure a man's morality, who is? Only the man himself? If so then morality is radically internal and each of us can only pass any judgement at all on our own actions. In which case those that believe that following unreflexively a code provided for them from some external source is moral, are morally god in following that code. In other words if morality is radically internal then the standards by which morality is measured are necessarily equally private and personal. I feel that although this works as a mental exercise it does not fit ou everyday understanding of morality. We do feel that we can judge whether other agents or actions are morally good or not. (Wal-Mart for example.)
Thus it seems that morality can not be so absolutely internal. There is some aspect of consensus, of convergence to accepted 'good' behaviour etc. This is why I believe moralty to be connected to the reflexive appraisal of the appraisal of others of oneself. (A little twisted but I hope you get what I mean)

Tell me though, you don't think that the outward appearance of the preist giving absolution makes him moral do you? I would say that this situation places problems on the idea of morality being external as well. If the action of the priest provided comfort to those that reqirewd it, if it was a source of hope, of cheer, then it was moral. His internal attitude to the act is irrelevant to the effect of the act. This is where I see the true object of moral judgement to lie. In the effects that we have on the emotional and internal state of those around us.

I actually hadn't really thought of this before, but you are correct that reason only provide options not motivation, but the same goes for a moral code as well, so I stick with the comparison between moral codes and reason.
And I will stick with desire and intent as being essential to the moral field.

Oh, you mean we actually have to listen to what people mean by their statements and not just twist them to what we want them to say. Hmmmm... perhaps you should try this when you look at my reference to dead, Mr. Strawman. I knew what you meant, just as you knew what I meant when I said Jesus was dead, but you chose to create a silly argument over a strawman. I just let you help illustrate how pointless such a thing is.

Now, Christans mix the equinox celebration with the resurrection of Christ. You are clearly talking about the latter part and I knew that. You knew what I meant when I said Jesus was dead, yet you continue to argue otherwise.

You made yourself into a strawman, I had no need to.

If you're actually going to be honest for a moment and admit you knew what I meant then of course, I knew what your intent was when you said Jesus is dead.
Your intent was to say that Jesus could not be the head of a physical church entity since Jesus does not live with us today in the physical world. (of course, I was never discussing a physical church entity, but you never did bother to resolve that one no matter how many times I explained it)

That doesn't mean that He is dead. Had you manned up to it, we could have ended it before it began.

Show me the body of Moses. Caesar. We don't have a time machine, so you're being silly. I'm saying if Jesus is a living being in the natural world, certainly there should be evidence of this. I'll wait. Or perhaps you are simply being disingenuous when you say I didn't use the word dead properly.


You know, I gotta say, you really, really overuse the word 'disingenuous'.
Was it in this month's Reader's Digest vocab test or something?
And didn't we resolve this dead issue just a paragragh ago?

Give me my Time Travel Booth 6000 and I'll find both bodies. Moses might be a pain to find since G-d handled that burial.

No one has said 'Jesus is a living being in the natural world' we're arguing over your claim 'Jesus is dead'.
Jesus is neither dead nor physically living and breathing in the natural world.

You didn't use the word dead properly.
I'm not being anything like disingenuous when I say that.

GnI disagree to an extent here. The body was gone. The mortal wounds were still there. You have accepted that both could be found in scripture. Mortal means wounds that you cannot live with. His body cannot be living with mortal wounds it's a contradiction in definition.


Given the miraculous nature of it all, I don't understand why you insist that He could not have been living because He had wounds.
Also, why are we referring to them as 'mortal wounds'?
It seems to be causing you issues.

I'm sorry that your ignorance of scripture offends you, but there is way to fix that open it up and read it instead of arguing a strawman.

I've opened it, many many times. If you believe there are scriptures to support your view that Jesus was not alive after the Resurrection, I truly would like to be educated in that regard.

In general emotion is a perception that can be confirmed by consensus.

Consensus still relies upon self-diagnosis - something that can never be truly empirical.

In particular it should not have an effect on one's morality.

Ok, so now you are saying that emotion can never have an effect on "valid" morality. On what then, do we base some of the main portions of morality? If emotion doesn't matter, then hurting someone's feelings, even maliciously, cannot be wrong.

The first example is a reason to reject the advice, the second two are a reason to question the advice. Under the second two examples you would still morally judge the advice to decide if it should be rejected.

You could do this in any of the cases. What is your point?

BTW, one of your examples made me think, is there anyway of applying precedent to the works of a supreme being?

Why not?

Can they not establish by similar descriptions that their experiences were similar?

Not definitively, no, because we can never know if our perceptions truly are similar to those of another, or if they are accurately describing their perceptions.

We can't establish what the result of seeing the color blue is, but we can establish a common process, a common experience. One person can create an experiment that can only result in his seeing blue. The other person follows the experiment, and what he sees is blue.

True, but we can never know if that experience is truly common, because we can never know that we are seeing the same thing - that we are perceiving things in the same way. Now take it out of something that we can measure with a machine (ie. the color blue). Let's talk about sadness. How do I know, when you describe being sad, that it is anything at all like what I feel when I am sad? How do I know that you aren't actually what I would think would be angry, but describing it as sadness? In this case, we can't even measure a wavelength to be sure that we are at least perceiving the same thing, even if we see it differently. The source and the perception may be completely different, and there is no way to know.

I'm sorry, but I have reread it and found the same thing. If you hold a religious tenet before morally examining it (holding a tenet without moral examination), it is still moral. I have to disagree and say that any religious tenet held before moral examination is amoral. Only after moral examination can a religious tenet become a moral religions tenet.

I'm sorry, but you seem to have a hard time with reading comprehension. Note that I said the tenet was held before it was examined, not in the absence of examination. In other words, it is examined.

Yes, but if the religion is based in morality, then there is no need for the subsequent morals to be based in religion, as they already have an adequate base without the religion.

We aren't talking about practicalities - we are talking about the process by which a person arrives at a moral code.

Like I said earlier, replicating the experience and defining whatever perception occurs. Blue may appear to be green to you but as long as we both call it blue, it is blue. We define the process of perceiving, not the result.

Yes, and that works, when we have something we can actually measure with a machine. When we are talking about something like emotion, however, which is only experienced personally and can never be measured from the outside, we are relying on self-diagnosis, which makes any such comparison inherently flawed. Thus, there is no process that can be defined. I can never know if your processes of emotion are the same as mine.

I have stated several times that morality can be established in religion, but only moral examination can cause it to be morally valid.

...which is still not the same thing as saying that valid morality cannot be based in religion.

Then what would you call the part of the natural world (like the human soul) which gets to interact with God?

I think there is no evidence in the natural world that the soul exists, so it's not really much of a point. I believe the soul is simply a reference to that which continues on after death. It's not a physical thing, but an abstract, like truth. Obviously, truth is a part of the physical world and, assuming there is a spiritual world as I do, a part of the spiritual world as well.


Then perhaps you are the lame one.

Uh-huh. I am humbled by the profundity of this argument.


Rather than throw such a statement out there, perhaps you would care to back that up with a decent argument. Otherwise you really are lame.
I would assume you've read the scriptures and your own statements. You can't see the contradiction there. Fine, I'll help, since you triple dog dared me.


Jesus did say not to call any religious leader 'Father', out of respect for the heavenly Father, but I doubt that he would have had any problem with the appointment of teachers.

Matthew 23:5"Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries[a] wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them 'Rabbi.'

8"But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. 9And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ.[b] 11The greatest among you will be your servant. 12For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

See what that says, also examine the context I didn't post in the interest of brevity. He says in a statement about the pride and authority with which the pharisees approach the world. He says that all men are equal and that none of them have spiritual authority save the Father. This should also be taken in context of the time when religious leaders were considered to have a special relationship with God that the average person did not. Jesus says "you are all brothers", not father and sons. This makes a great statement about the authority of Church leaders.

I agree the mortal wounds were still there WHEN he appeared to Thomas.

I don't see any reason to believe they STILL are.

Oh, I misread. I was talking about initially. We agree then.

You didn't use the word dead properly.
I'm not being anything like disingenuous when I say that.

I most certainly did. He was physcally dead. His resurrection was not physical because the wounds would either no longer be mortal or they would be gone altogether. It's quite simple. I'm sorry you're struggling with it (of course I don't believe you are actually struggling, I think you're just lying because you don't want to admit your full of it).

You made yourself into a strawman, I had no need to.

If you're actually going to be honest for a moment and admit you knew what I meant then of course, I knew what your intent was when you said Jesus is dead.
Your intent was to say that Jesus could not be the head of a physical church entity since Jesus does not live with us today in the physical world. (of course, I was never discussing a physical church entity, but you never did bother to resolve that one no matter how many times I explained it)

That doesn't mean that He is dead. Had you manned up to it, we could have ended it before it began.

No, I was discussing the physical church entity. If you remember you started this whole ridiculous thing by claiming the church cannot act deliberately. And I said the statement about Jesus when you said there was no head of the Church that actually guides the Church which is obviously patently ridiculous. Seriously, it's like arguing with a goldfish.

Given the miraculous nature of it all, I don't understand why you insist that He could not have been living because He had wounds.
Also, why are we referring to them as 'mortal wounds'?
It seems to be causing you issues.

He could not have been naturally living because then the wounds would not be mortal. It's a very simply truism. Mortal wounds mean that you cannot live with them. If he was physically living with them, they weren't mortal. It's a part of the definition. If you have mortal wounds you are either dead or dying by the meaning of the words.

You made yourself into a strawman, I had no need to.

If you're actually going to be honest for a moment and admit you knew what I meant then of course, I knew what your intent was when you said Jesus is dead.
Your intent was to say that Jesus could not be the head of a physical church entity since Jesus does not live with us today in the physical world. (of course, I was never discussing a physical church entity, but you never did bother to resolve that one no matter how many times I explained it)

That doesn't mean that He is dead. Had you manned up to it, we could have ended it before it began.

I made myself into a strawman? Hmmmm... and here I thought strawman were referring to arguments. How interesting. Actually, it's not really interesting. I don't want to be dishonest like some here. Meanwhile, if you're going to use the word so much, please look it up. People who use words they don't understand make kittens cry.

He is not the physical head of the Church. No matter how you slice it there is a physical head of the Church and it ain't Jesus. I was talking about the physical head of the Church and you claimed that the only head of the church was Jesus which is a real nice thought, but there is a physical church with a physical head. If your argument was not talking about the physical church that burned people for heresy and the like, then you weren't addressing my arguments at all and just posting non sequitters. I apologize for assuming you were following a logical refutation of my statements.

If you'd just admitting your intentionally misrepresenting my arguments, we'd be done here, my dishonest friend.

I've opened it, many many times. If you believe there are scriptures to support your view that Jesus was not alive after the Resurrection, I truly would like to be educated in that regard.

I didn't say he was not alive. I said he was not physically and naturally alive. Does this ever work? Do you think we don't remember what we say? Dishonesty is such a sad tactic. Now, see, that is what a strawman is, misrepresenting someone's argument to dispute it. Meanwhile, I gave the evidence for why he was not physically alive, evidence you accepted as part of scripture like the MORTAL wounds.

It's not irrelevant. I'm differentiating between Chritian festivals and festivals that Christians participate in.
None of which has anything to do with the conversation except for Jocabia trying to dodge the Resurrection.

In order for there to BE a resurrection, someone dead has to REALLY be NOT dead.


But, they have to REALLY be dead, first...


But if you go back to the Sunday, the body is not there.
Why?
Resurrection.
Therefore, Jesus is NO longer dead.
If we shadow him until ascension, He nevers dies.
So, unless you make the absurd and unsupported claim that He died after ascending, Jesus is not dead.

(aside - do you doubt that with the aid of a Time Travel Booth 6000 we could ascertain the time, manner and place of their deaths?)


The problem with this kind of speculation, of course, is that your whole argument RELIES on us not findin a body on the third day. What if our imaginary time maxhine takes us back to 100 AD, and we find Jesus still in the cave?


So, your contention is that someone can be resurrected and dead at the same time?
I find that almost painful to type in it is so illogical.

And yet, you have no problems with the Trinity or the eternal son of an Eternal God?

Methinks you pick you pick your paradoxes.

Since this bizarre argument won't seem to go away let's inject some reason into it.

Now, it was mentioned that Paul encountered the resurrected Christ. Now, if that Christ was the naturally living Christ as some would claim, one must wonder why that same Paul said this -
Romans 8:11And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.

Hmmmmm... why would he refer to be giving life ALSO (also meaning just like Christ was given life in the resurrection) when he is talking to people who are already living. Seems a little strange does it not.

The resurrection was miraculous and that's why it was not physical. It was on a whole other level from previous miracles, because it signifies that the mortal coil of the Son of God died for us and the Spirit of Jesus LIVES for us. If he was simply physically resurrected, then why is that so much more significant than say -

Mark 5:35While Jesus was still speaking, some men came from the house of Jairus, the synagogue ruler. "Your daughter is dead," they said. "Why bother the teacher any more?"

36Ignoring what they said, Jesus told the synagogue ruler, "Don't be afraid; just believe."

37He did not let anyone follow him except Peter, James and John the brother of James. 38When they came to the home of the synagogue ruler, Jesus saw a commotion, with people crying and wailing loudly. 39He went in and said to them, "Why all this commotion and wailing? The child is not dead but asleep." 40But they laughed at him.
After he put them all out, he took the child's father and mother and the disciples who were with him, and went in where the child was. 41He took her by the hand and said to her, "Talitha koum!" (which means, "Little girl, I say to you, get up!" ). 42Immediately the girl stood up and walked around (she was twelve years old). At this they were completely astonished. 43He gave strict orders not to let anyone know about this, and told them to give her something to eat.

Or perhaps her resurrection was wholly different than the resurrection of Jesus because the resurrection of the Spirit minus to the burden of the mortal coil is so much more impressive than simply healing the body.

But, they have to REALLY be dead, first...

Apparently, the resurrection of Jesus was no more special than that of the 12-year-old. I guess I'll have to stop treating it like such a unique miracle and concede that TSE is right. Of course, that would be rejecting the Bible and logic, but hey, who needs that stuff, right?

The problem with this kind of speculation, of course, is that your whole argument RELIES on us not findin a body on the third day. What if our imaginary time maxhine takes us back to 100 AD, and we find Jesus still in the cave?

Or what if the body was never healed and thus never actually returned to life in the physical sense of the word. His ridiculous claim is that the reference to life after the resurrection is equal to the medical reference to life. The scripture tends to combat this when it talks about imbuing us with that same life. Since I'm already alive, I'd assume they mean something else, but hey maybe they were just nuts, right?

And yet, you have no problems with the Trinity or the eternal son of an Eternal God?

Methinks you pick you pick your paradoxes.
Or simply makes them up. He has no problem with the Bible reference several different kinds of life and death, just so long as I don't use the terms the same way. How about the fact that it is said in the Bible that if one is saved they will never die? Do they mean death in the medical sense? Obviously not or no one has been saved since death of Christ. I'm guessing that's not what they mean, but again, maybe I'm crazy for trying to be logical. Meanwhile, notices how much effort TSE has put into pulling us off the main track. Methinks this is no accident. The classic troll maneuver.

Let's see, first he tries to claim there has never been deliberate actions on the part of the Church towards preventing independent study of the Word. Moreso, he later states there are no actions of the Church, but only actions of men, unless the actions are led by Jesus, which of course since Jesus is dead is impossible to observe and makes it a non-argument. Then when I state that the only one physically commanding the church is a man because Jesus is dead we have to spend ten pages debating that. I have to wonder if TSE has ANY point other than trolling. I'm thinking not.

Apparently, the resurrection of Jesus was no more special than that of the 12-year-old. I guess I'll have to stop treating it like such a unique miracle and concede that TSE is right. Of course, that would be rejecting the Bible and logic, but hey, who needs that stuff, right?


I do find myself wondering why Lazarus isn't considered more important...


Or what if the body was never healed and thus never actually returned to life in the physical sense of the word. His ridiculous claim is that the reference to life after the resurrection is equal to the medical reference to life. The scripture tends to combat this when it talks about imbuing us with that same life. Since I'm already alive, I'd assume they mean something else, but hey maybe they were just nuts, right?


This is why we read the KJV, not the original Greek and Hebrew texts.

Most people just don't seem to be able to handle the idea that 'love' can have several meanings, that a thousand can just mean 'more than you can count', or that a 'day' can represent any amount of time.

We need a version of the Bible that cut's through all the thought, and only states what is essential, and unarguable....

Oh wait... Bill and Ted already did it: "Be Excellent To Each Other" and "Party On, Dudes". That about covers it...


Or simply makes them up. He has no problem with the Bible reference several different kinds of life and death, just so long as I don't use the terms the same way. How about the fact that it is said in the Bible that if one is saved they will never die? Do they mean death in the medical sense? Obviously not or no one has been saved since death of Christ. I'm guessing that's not what they mean, but again, maybe I'm crazy for trying to be logical. Meanwhile, notices how much effort TSE has put into pulling us off the main track. Methinks this is no accident. The classic troll maneuver.

Let's see, first he tries to claim there has never been deliberate actions on the part of the Church towards preventing independent study of the Word. Moreso, he later states there are no actions of the Church, but only actions of men, unless the actions are led by Jesus, which of course since Jesus is dead is impossible to observe and makes it a non-argument. Then when I state that the only one physically commanding the church is a man because Jesus is dead we have to spend ten pages debating that. I have to wonder if TSE has ANY point other than trolling. I'm thinking not.


Man: I came here for a good argument.

Mr Vibrating: No you didn't, you came here for an argument.

Man: Well, an argument's not the same as contradiction.

Mr Vibrating: It can be.

Man: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a definite proposition.

Mr Vibrating: No it isn't.

Man: Yes it is. It isn't just contradiction.

Mr Vibrating: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.

Man: But it isn't just saying "No it isn't".

Mr Vibrating: Yes it is.

Man: No it isn't, an argument is an intellectual process... contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.

Mr Vibrating: No it isn't.

*monty python quote*

I was wondering why it looked familiar. My favorite was when he said I was actually the strawman. Apparently, I'm the scarecrow from the Wizard of Oz. The odd part is that it's not me that everyone is wonderiing, "if he only had a brain, do do do do."

I was wondering why it looked familiar. My favorite was when he said I was actually the strawman. Apparently, I'm the scarecrow from the Wizard of Oz. The odd part is that it's not me that everyone is wonderiing, "if he only had a brain, do do do do."

Maybe you ARE a strawman... the thot plickens...

There's an easy way to check, of course... do you "while away the hours, conferrin' with the flowers, Consultin' with the rain..."?

I most certainly did.

No you didn't.

No, I was discussing the physical church entity. If you remember you started this whole ridiculous thing by claiming the church cannot act deliberately. And I said the statement about Jesus when you said there was no head of the Church that actually guides the Church which is obviously patently ridiculous. Seriously, it's like arguing with a goldfish.


Wow, how can you possibly STILL not understand that entire discussion?

He could not have been naturally living because then the wounds would not be mortal. It's a very simply truism. Mortal wounds mean that you cannot live with them. If he was physically living with them, they weren't mortal. It's a part of the definition. If you have mortal wounds you are either dead or dying by the meaning of the words.

Another truism is that dead people don't resurrect.
Since Jesus died on the cross, He could not have resurrected.

I made myself into a strawman? Hmmmm... and here I thought strawman were referring to arguments. How interesting. Actually, it's not really interesting. I don't want to be dishonest like some here. Meanwhile, if you're going to use the word so much, please look it up. People who use words they don't understand make kittens cry.


I'm aware of the definition.
I don't actually find the need to use it that much.

He is not the physical head of the Church. No matter how you slice it there is a physical head of the Church and it ain't Jesus. I was talking about the physical head of the Church and you claimed that the only head of the church was Jesus which is a real nice thought, but there is a physical church with a physical head. If your argument was not talking about the physical church that burned people for heresy and the like, then you weren't addressing my arguments at all and just posting non sequitters. I apologize for assuming you were following a logical refutation of my statements.


Except, I was not talking to you, so I was not refuting your statements.
I was also never talking about the physical Roman Catholic church. Not that it matters how many times I say it though, it's like you have some weird psycho-somatic blindness whenever I explain this to you.

If you'd just admitting your intentionally misrepresenting my arguments, we'd be done here, my dishonest friend.


I won't lie for you.

I didn't say he was not alive. I said he was not physically and naturally alive. Does this ever work? Do you think we don't remember what we say? Dishonesty is such a sad tactic. Now, see, that is what a strawman is, misrepresenting someone's argument to dispute it.


Except, that's not what you said.
You said that he is dead.

Meanwhile, I gave the evidence for why he was not physically alive, evidence you accepted as part of scripture like the MORTAL wounds.

I did?
I retract then.
Show me 'mortal' wounds in scripture.

But, they have to REALLY be dead, first...


But of course, there's no denying that.

Then, they have to be REALLY alive second.

The problem with this kind of speculation, of course, is that your whole argument RELIES on us not findin a body on the third day. What if our imaginary time maxhine takes us back to 100 AD, and we find Jesus still in the cave?

Why is that a problem?
If we go back to 100 AD and find the body, I'm wrong, you're right.

I'm not sure how you'd support the idea of God sneaking a body back into a tomb though.
If you can manage it, I'll submit.

And yet, you have no problems with the Trinity or the eternal son of an Eternal God?

Methinks you pick you pick your paradoxes.

I don't have problems with either of those?

Methinks you should not presume too much.

The resurrection was miraculous and that's why it was not physical. It was on a whole other level from previous miracles, because it signifies that the mortal coil of the Son of God died for us and the Spirit of Jesus LIVES for us. If he was simply physically resurrected, then why is that so much more significant than say -


Quite possibly the best and only good point you've brought to the table.
I whole heartedly agree with where you are going, but don't seem to see the same need you do to deny the physical to get there.

You seem to see an either/or situation, yes?
Either Jesus was resurrected physically OR spiritually "on a whole other level from previous miracles"

I believe both to be true.

Apparently, the resurrection of Jesus was no more special than that of the 12-year-old. I guess I'll have to stop treating it like such a unique miracle and concede that TSE is right. Of course, that would be rejecting the Bible and logic, but hey, who needs that stuff, right?


Why, Mr. Scarecrow, you just pop up everywhere, don't you?

You're the only one that mentioned the 12 year old raised, and now you argue against it as if i made any point regarding it?

Or what if the body was never healed and thus never actually returned to life in the physical sense of the word. His ridiculous claim is that the reference to life after the resurrection is equal to the medical reference to life. The scripture tends to combat this when it talks about imbuing us with that same life. Since I'm already alive, I'd assume they mean something else, but hey maybe they were just nuts, right?


With the thoughts you'd be thinkin'
You could be another Lincoln
If you only had a brain.

My claim, pardon, my 'ridiculous' claim is that Jesus is not dead.

Continue to wile away your hours...

He has no problem with the Bible reference several different kinds of life and death, just so long as I don't use the terms the same way.


LOL, how rich. If you'd use the terms the same way as the Bible, this entire side discussion would never happen.

'Jesus is dead'; find me such a Bible reference and we can be done here and I will crown you the Kiiiing of the Forrrrest.

Let's see, first he tries to claim there has never been deliberate actions on the part of the Church towards preventing independent study of the Word. Moreso, he later states there are no actions of the Church, but only actions of men, unless the actions are led by Jesus, which of course since Jesus is dead is impossible to observe and makes it a non-argument. Then when I state that the only one physically commanding the church is a man because Jesus is dead we have to spend ten pages debating that. I have to wonder if TSE has ANY point other than trolling. I'm thinking not.

You've demonstrated a complete inability to even vaguely grasp the points I make, so please, don't presume for a moment that you state my claims.

A thought has occured to me, following one or two of the recent threads...

Religions tend to focus on codes of laws, sets of rules, that one must follow.

Religions tend to suggest these 'laws' originate at some higher point than mere humanity.

To be 'religious' then, it seems one must be obedient... one must 'obey' the morality that is ordained from some superior point.

A pet dog can be 'obedient'... and if I tell a dog to obey me, that doesn't make the dog more or less 'moral' in it's actions... just more or less obedient to MY morality.

So - if one is religious, one is not exercising any 'morality'... merely 'obeying' the moral instruction of another...

Discuss?

of course one could go on a terrible rant how no one really chooses anything because we are socially conditioned depending on the society we grow in to act and belive certain things... and since when is morality directly attached to choice ? Last I checked Morality was about right and wrong.... which does not imply choice at all. Of course even more touted then what is moral and right in religion is the belif that choice is our ulimate gift, and thus is present in all of our actions.

In any case, this is simply an awful topic which is poorly constructed and lacks all sense of logic.

In any case, this is simply an awful topic which is poorly constructed and lacks all sense of logic.
So the people who've propegated the idea through the past 34 pages are all of a lesser mentality than yourself? Especially the OP'r? You, in all likelihood, didn't bother to read it. Try harder before you make rash and neglectful decisions.

But of course, there's no denying that.
Then, they have to be REALLY alive second.


Not really... not in the way 'flesh' understands 'alive'.


Why is that a problem?
If we go back to 100 AD and find the body, I'm wrong, you're right.


How am I 'right'? My belief structure doesn't rest on a body in a cave.

Now, who presumes too much?


I'm not sure how you'd support the idea of God sneaking a body back into a tomb though.
If you can manage it, I'll submit.


I'm not sure if I can manage it... I don't really understand what you mean, here.

of course one could go on a terrible rant how no one really chooses anything because we are socially conditioned depending on the society we grow in to act and belive certain things... and since when is morality directly attached to choice ? Last I checked Morality was about right and wrong.... which does not imply choice at all. Of course even more touted then what is moral and right in religion is the belif that choice is our ulimate gift, and thus is present in all of our actions.

In any case, this is simply an awful topic which is poorly constructed and lacks all sense of logic.

Well, thanks for your input.

I wish you had gone "on a terrible rant how no one really chooses anything because we are socially conditioned depending on the society we grow in to act and belive certain things"... because that would have been pertinent to the topic, and might have illustrated some as-yet-unraised points to discuss.

(It may interest you to know that this 'social conditioning' you speak of, is a topic I have some interest in, myself... something of a project, even).


Also - it would have been nice if you'd actually made some argument to support "Morality was about right and wrong.... which does not imply choice at all"... since it seems to be in contrast to what MOST people have argued within this very thread.

I'm sorry you found the topic 'awful' (have you read the thread?)... but, I disagree with your claim that it is lacking "all sense of logic"... again, it would have been nice to see an argument made, rather than just an assertion.

So the people who've propegated the idea through the past 34 pages are all of a lesser mentality than yourself? Especially the OP'r? You, in all likelihood, didn't bother to read it. Try harder before you make rash and neglectful decisions.

Thank you, my friend.... this topic has already generated about 500 responses, so it could be argued there is some merit to the thing...