NationStates Jolt Archive

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?

Wow, just wow. I don't argue against it. It's evidence. I use it to make the point that the resurrection of Jesus was not a resurrection of the flesh which had been done before several times in the Bible. It was a different kind of resurrection that left him as something spiritually living, permanently. He was no longer of the flesh.Seriously, this really does resemble that Monty Python skit.

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...

In other words you cannot refute my claims so you continue to misuse the word strawman. How unimpressive.

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.

I see you don't care if your argument is illogical. The point that is so clear to everyone who is not a troll is that the bible uses these words several different ways, including the way I used it. However in this case they talk about the resurrection and the new life of Jesus as a different kind of life than you and I have and thus offer for us to be resurrected in that life while we're not even dead. It completely kills your resurrection point which is why you aren't actually making an argument anymore, troll.

By the way, now you're mixing metaphors.

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.
Hmmmmmm... GnI seemed to think I'd nailed them. I think what I demonstrated is that you're a troll just here to be contrary and keep us from having a discussion.

Not really... not in the way 'flesh' understands 'alive'.


Then why call it a resurrection? Why not a transfiguration? a glorification? transformation? Something that captures your sense without impling a return to life from the dead.

How am I 'right'? My belief structure doesn't rest on a body in a cave.

Now, who presumes too much?


You're taking that too broad. I'm not referring to either you or I being right or wrong in our belief structures.
I doubt either of us hang our belief structures on this point.
I'm referring only to the current discussion on the nature of the post-resurrection flesh and whether it is in a state of 'alive' or 'dead'


I'm not sure if I can manage it... I don't really understand what you mean, here.

You posited that while the tomb was empty on the 3rd day, that it may not have been empty 100 years later.
I find that to be an odd suggestion and gently mocked you for it asking what led you to even suggest it, let alone what might support that thought.

Then why call it a resurrection? Why not a transfiguration? a glorification? transformation? Something that captures your sense without impling a return to life from the dead.

Why is the 'life' he has that is completely different than the 'life' we have using the same word? Because they know that human beings are capable of using the same word in different ways and using this thing called context to figure out which meaning is appropriate.

Then why call it a resurrection? Why not a transfiguration? a glorification? transformation? Something that captures your sense without impling a return to life from the dead.


Try the Greek:

Anastasis, from anistemi... basically 'to arise'.

My Concordance defines 'anastasis':

1) a raising up, rising (e.g. from a seat)

2) a rising from the dead

a) that of Christ

b) that of all men at the end of this present age

c) the resurrection of certain ones history who were restored to life (Heb. 11:35)

So - 'resurrection' just means 'getting up'... it carries no implications of the SAME flesh being re-enlivened.


You're taking that too broad. I'm not referring to either you or I being right or wrong in our belief structures.
I doubt either of us hang our belief structures on this point.
I'm referring only to the current discussion on the nature of the post-resurrection flesh and whether it is in a state of 'alive' or 'dead'


But, Jesus can be mortally, physically dead, and STILL the body can hve disappeared... if the old, dead flesh were transubstantiated into the new, spiritual flesh.


You posited that while the tomb was empty on the 3rd day, that it may not have been empty 100 years later.
I find that to be an odd suggestion and gently mocked you for it asking what led you to even suggest it, let alone what might support that thought.

The point was that we might find Jesus body in the cave at some time after the alleged burial. I don't trust our calendar enough to assume that the time I think would be 'three days after the crucifixion' actually WOULD be.

Wow, just wow. I don't argue against it. It's evidence. I use it to make the point that the resurrection of Jesus was not a resurrection of the flesh which had been done before several times in the Bible. It was a different kind of resurrection that left him as something spiritually living, permanently. He was no longer of the flesh.Seriously, this really does resemble that Monty Python skit.


You brought in the evidence then proceeded to argue against a position in opposition to your evidence that you ascribed to me. I had not yet even commented on the 12 year old girl issue.
That is the essence of a strawman argument.

Anyway, my actual position is that the Resurrection of Christ is MORE THAN the Resurrection of the 12 year old girl, or Lazarus. The fact that it is 'more than' does not mean that it can't encompass all that the other resurrections were, plus the same spiritual changes that you are arguing for.

In other words you cannot refute my claims so you continue to misuse the word strawman. How unimpressive.


No, since you continue to argue against a strawman of your own construction I'll leave you two to your own devices.

Btw, you might want to note that you actually referred to me as "Mr. Strawman" before I called you a strawman. That made me semi-confident that you would understand the humourous intent of the usage, but my confidence in you was misplaced it seems.

I see you don't care if your argument is illogical. The point that is so clear to everyone who is not a troll is that the bible uses these words several different ways, including the way I used it.

Show me.
Show me even ONE place the Bible uses 'dead' in reference to Jesus the way you used it.
It should be exceptionally easy since you claim it is so clear to everyone.

By the way, now you're mixing metaphors.


Of course I am, it was quite intentional.

Hmmmmmm... GnI seemed to think I'd nailed them. I think what I demonstrated is that you're a troll just here to be contrary and keep us from having a discussion.

1. Appeal to GnI's authority is less than convincing. Not everyone reveres his opinion as unassailable as you do.
2. I think I understand better what I'm saying than GnI does.
3. When did GnI say you nailed it understanding my opinion anyway?
4. There seems to be pages and pages of discussion, I must be doing a rather poor job of preventing it if that's my goal.

Why is the 'life' he has that is completely different than the 'life' we have using the same word? Because they know that human beings are capable of using the same word in different ways and using this thing called context to figure out which meaning is appropriate.


True.
And in context, Jesus is not 'dead'.

Try the Greek:

Anastasis, from anistemi... basically 'to arise'.

My Concordance defines 'anastasis':

1) a raising up, rising (e.g. from a seat)

2) a rising from the dead

a) that of Christ

b) that of all men at the end of this present age

c) the resurrection of certain ones history who were restored to life (Heb. 11:35)

So - 'resurrection' just means 'getting up'... it carries no implications of the SAME flesh being re-enlivened.


Sure, let's try the Greek.

Definition 1, provides the example "from a seat". clearly, that is not the context we are looking for.

Definition 2, rising from the dead.
Hey, that's what we're looking for!

Now, unless you're of the belief that the rising from the dead is a zombie deal, I don't know how you get away from Jesus being fleshly re-enlivened.

He appears to people, He goes to pains to tell them he is no Spirit, eating to prove it and invites Thomas to examine the wounds to prove it is Jesus in the flesh.
The Scriptural evidence all seems to clearly point to a fleshly resurrection as far as I can see.

But to re-iterate an earlier point, I don't see a fleshy resurrection as limiting the obvious and more important spiritual resurrection of Christ.

But, Jesus can be mortally, physically dead, and STILL the body can hve disappeared... if the old, dead flesh were transubstantiated into the new, spiritual flesh.

OK, I can see that.
It's still a flesh resurrection though, with a flesh transubstantiation thrown in.

Don't you find it odd to say, "spiritual flesh", is that not a contradiction?

The point was that we might find Jesus body in the cave at some time after the alleged burial. I don't trust our calendar enough to assume that the time I think would be 'three days after the crucifixion' actually WOULD be.

I'm not exactly tracking with you.
My point is that after the crucifixion but before the resurrection, we would likely find the body buried in the tomb. After the resurrection, we will never again find the body.
The actual calendar dates, accurate or not are not relevant to my point, if they are to yours, I'm missing why.

Sure, let's try the Greek.

Definition 1, provides the example "from a seat". clearly, that is not the context we are looking for.

Definition 2, rising from the dead.
Hey, that's what we're looking for!

Now, unless you're of the belief that the rising from the dead is a zombie deal, I don't know how you get away from Jesus being fleshly re-enlivened.

He appears to people, He goes to pains to tell them he is no Spirit, eating to prove it and invites Thomas to examine the wounds to prove it is Jesus in the flesh.
The Scriptural evidence all seems to clearly point to a fleshly resurrection as far as I can see.

But to re-iterate an earlier point, I don't see a fleshy resurrection as limiting the obvious and more important spiritual resurrection of Christ.


You are ignoring the etymology, or you don't understand it?

The 'meaning' of 'anastasis' is something about 'getting up'. We might use similar terminology today... 'raising the dead', for example. Anmastasis is derived from 'anistemi'... so the etymology is clear - the word comes from a root meaning to get up, or to lift. The root has nothing to do with death or bodies, it describes a process of elevation.

I'm not sure where you get the idea "Definition 1, provides the example "from a seat". clearly, that is not the context we are looking for"... because that is EXACTLY what we are looking for. The meaning of the word is to get up... and 'rising from the dead' is describable in those terms.

The important part of that definition IS the rising... since the definition tells us NOTHING about the nature of resurrection... just that it means 'rising from the dead'.


OK, I can see that.
It's still a flesh resurrection though, with a flesh transubstantiation thrown in.


Why? Because you want it to be?

It's more logical to assume that dead 'mortal flesh' is miraculously converted directly to living 'spiritual flesh'.


Don't you find it odd to say, "spiritual flesh", is that not a contradiction?


No. I'm trying to describe something in 'lay' terms. "Spiritual flesh" isn't contradictory, it is a way of describing the 'material' of a body raised separate from the usual mundane limitations of 'mortal flesh'.


I'm not exactly tracking with you.
My point is that after the crucifixion but before the resurrection, we would likely find the body buried in the tomb. After the resurrection, we will never again find the body.
The actual calendar dates, accurate or not are not relevant to my point, if they are to yours, I'm missing why.

You claim we would not find a body after the alleged 'resurrection' event. We can neither prove this, nor prove that an 'absent' body means ANYTHING more than something 'misplaced'.

You are ignoring the etymology, or you don't understand it?

The 'meaning' of 'anastasis' is something about 'getting up'. We might use similar terminology today... 'raising the dead', for example. Anmastasis is derived from 'anistemi'... so the etymology is clear - the word comes from a root meaning to get up, or to lift. The root has nothing to do with death or bodies, it describes a process of elevation.

I'm not sure where you get the idea "Definition 1, provides the example "from a seat". clearly, that is not the context we are looking for"... because that is EXACTLY what we are looking for. The meaning of the word is to get up... and 'rising from the dead' is describable in those terms.

The important part of that definition IS the rising... since the definition tells us NOTHING about the nature of resurrection... just that it means 'rising from the dead'.


Sure, the root is 'risen', but even in the definition you posted, it has contextual definitions. It could be used in reference to rising from one's seat to give a standing ovation perhaps, but it is recognised in your provided definition that it can contextually mean, to "rise FROM the dead". Clearly, the context we are looking at is the latter.

If you are rising FROM the dead, you are rising TO life.

I will agree with you though that the "nature of resurrection" is not discussed in the definition of the word.

Given a lack of explicit definition, I refer to the context of the story.
I see Jesus physically appearing in the story, I see him using flesh and referring to His flesh.
I do not see any reference to spiritual flesh.

I'm not actually even opposed to the concept you present, but I don't see the support or even the need for it.

Why do you 'need' it?

Why? Because you want it to be?

It's more logical to assume that dead 'mortal flesh' is miraculously converted directly to living 'spiritual flesh'.

I just can't say that's logical when you keep saying 'spiritual flesh'

No. I'm trying to describe something in 'lay' terms. "Spiritual flesh" isn't contradictory, it is a way of describing the 'material' of a body raised separate from the usual mundane limitations of 'mortal flesh'.


The usual mundane limitations of 'mortal flesh' preclude resurrection in the first place. Why do you need something separate?

You claim we would not find a body after the alleged 'resurrection' event. We can neither prove this, nor prove that an 'absent' body means ANYTHING more than something 'misplaced'.

I'll grant that. I believe that scripture lends support to my claim, and that it is a good base to begin from when discussing the nature of the resurrected saviour.

Thank you, my friend.... this topic has already generated about 500 responses, so it could be argued there is some merit to the thing...
Can we really count all these posts? I went back to read through the whole thing again and, the more of these "Jesus is still dead" posts you guys put up, the faster I can scroll through it. :p

There seems to be consensus that morality is dependent on individual choice. No matter what you understand to be "right," you still have to choose to do it. I totally agree with this. I also agree that a person who just blindly follows a moral code without question/examination is shirking his responsibility to choose and thus ducking the whole question of his own morality. I further agree that the source of morals is not what makes them morals -- a moral code can come from religion, reason, culture, etc. What makes it a moral code is whether it attempts to sort "right" from "wrong."

But as to what makes you a moral person, I think that morality itself cannot be taught by any external source or by studying any code. It is a quality of a person's character, and we all either have it or lack it. One of my favorite quotes is, "Where men have manners, laws are unnecessary. Where men have no manners, laws are broken." (Disreali? Not sure.)

My point is that an immoral person cannot be trusted to obey a moral code regardless of how involved with it he is, while a moral person will try to figure out the right thing to do, even if there is no code to guide him. For the immoral person, the code is a cheat. For the moral person, the code is a convenience.

True.
And in context, Jesus is not 'dead'.

Jesus is not dead as being lost of the life that is referenced as the life we do not have. Even after receiving the same life according to the Bible we still die, so it is a reference to a different kind of life. In natural terms we still die and so did he. Thank you for making my point. In that context, Jesus is not dead. In the way I used it, he is. That's the point. I didn't use it in a biblical or canonical context, but a natural context and in the natural sense, Jesus has a life that has nothing to do with natural death, a type of life that we can be imbued with and still die. When we discuss that type of life, the kind he was given when he was resurrected, that kind of life can be continually held while a person dies. It is not connected with natural death in any way, thus Jesus is dead in the context I used. Your ability to change the context does not change my use of the word, it just shows you don't understand context.

Jesus is not dead as being lost of the life that is referenced as the life we do not have. Even after receiving the same life according to the Bible we still die, so it is a reference to a different kind of life. In natural terms we still die and so did he. Thank you for making my point. In that context, Jesus is not dead. In the way I used it, he is. That's the point. I didn't use it in a biblical or canonical context, but a natural context and in the natural sense, Jesus has a life that has nothing to do with natural death, a type of life that we can be imbued with and still die. When we discuss that type of life, the kind he was given when he was resurrected, that kind of life can be continually held while a person dies. It is not connected with natural death in any way, thus Jesus is dead in the context I used. Your ability to change the context does not change my use of the word, it just shows you don't understand context.

I understand the context perfectly.
I don't actually disagree with anything that you think you mean when you say 'Jesus is dead', you simply used the wrong word (in any context) and are just stubborn enough to not admit it.

I understand the context perfectly.
I don't actually disagree with anything that you think you mean when you say 'Jesus is dead', you simply used the wrong word (in any context) and are just stubborn enough to not admit it.

Dead is the wrong word for being naturally dead? What word do I have your permission to use? It's sad that your grasp of the English language is so poor that you don't recognize that my use of the word dead was the correct usage. I blame your English teacher and forgive you.

Dead is the wrong word for being naturally dead? What word do I have your permission to use? It's sad that your grasp of the English language is so poor that you don't recognize that my use of the word dead was the correct usage. I blame your English teacher and forgive you.


Jesus not being naturally present does not equate to being naturally dead.

Maybe we should change a few hymns and choruses to accomadate you...

He's dead
He's dead
I know my Jesus is dead.
He walks with me, He talks with me
I know my Jesus is dead!

Sure, the root is 'risen', but even in the definition you posted, it has contextual definitions. It could be used in reference to rising from one's seat to give a standing ovation perhaps, but it is recognised in your provided definition that it can contextually mean, to "rise FROM the dead". Clearly, the context we are looking at is the latter.

If you are rising FROM the dead, you are rising TO life.

I will agree with you though that the "nature of resurrection" is not discussed in the definition of the word.

Given a lack of explicit definition, I refer to the context of the story.
I see Jesus physically appearing in the story, I see him using flesh and referring to His flesh.
I do not see any reference to spiritual flesh.


Have you actually used a concordance, before?

Since we are dealing with a language that is no longer being used in the same form, we have to do certain things... we find our definitions both within AND without the text we are analysing.

This is one of the reasons many scholars have a problem with Paul - he had a bad habit of inventing phrases, that just do not appear anywhere else.

So - we find what a word historically means, through the scripture and through other sources. Thus, our 'definition' in the concordance, will allow for a 'meaning'... and some 'lesser meanings' or 'special applications'.

The word we are studying means something along the lines of 'raise up'... and can specifically be used as a reference to 'raise up... the dead' BECAUSE of the context in which it is found IN SCRIPTURE. It is contextual... it doesn't DEFINE the meaning.

An example: Wicked is taken to mean cruel, evil or bad. Yet, I have seen things described as 'wicked' to mean they are very GOOD. The 'meaning' of the word is 'bad', but it has some special applications.

So - Jesus 'rises up'. It does not make any other comment to the procedure, except, from the context, that Jesus WAS dead, and now he is rising.

Does that mean he is risen back to (literal) life? Not at all - our modern mythology is filled with visions of ghosts 'rising up' from the dead, to ascend to heaven. The ONLY thing implied, is that Jesus got up.

At the same time, something has changed. Jesus was man and god... and after the resurrection, he was god. Ths - he is not constrained by mortal mundane flesh.

He can appear in closed rooms, he can have hands placed inside a mortal wound, we can appear without flesh entirely, appearing just as light (and/or a voice). He can travel through Hell, and he can reside in Heaven. This is not 'normal' flesh.

There seems to be consensus that morality is dependent on individual choice. No matter what you understand to be "right," you still have to choose to do it. I totally agree with this. I also agree that a person who just blindly follows a moral code without question/examination is shirking his responsibility to choose and thus ducking the whole question of his own morality. I further agree that the source of morals is not what makes them morals -- a moral code can come from religion, reason, culture, etc. What makes it a moral code is whether it attempts to sort "right" from "wrong."

But as to what makes you a moral person, I think that morality itself cannot be taught by any external source or by studying any code. It is a quality of a person's character, and we all either have it or lack it. One of my favorite quotes is, "Where men have manners, laws are unnecessary. Where men have no manners, laws are broken." (Disreali? Not sure.)

My point is that an immoral person cannot be trusted to obey a moral code regardless of how involved with it he is, while a moral person will try to figure out the right thing to do, even if there is no code to guide him. For the immoral person, the code is a cheat. For the moral person, the code is a convenience.

Agreed. Laws (moral or otherwise) have always been more to prevent casual straying, and to offer a rebuke to the stray, than to guide the 'good'.

Jesus not being naturally present does not equate to being naturally dead.

Maybe we should change a few hymns and choruses to accomadate you...

He's dead
He's dead
I know my Jesus is dead.
He walks with me, He talks with me
I know my Jesus is dead!

Or maybe, just maybe, they use the word living, life and lives, to mean something other than life, but hey, I only cited scripture that showed them doing so. That he fits one definition of life, does not mean he fits all others. In fact, it's quite clear the type of life that Jesus has, according to scripture is different than natural life, which you and I clearly have. To say otherwise is to clearly, and ridiculously, deny scripture. Seriously, does this ever work? Everyone knows that you're using equivocation.

Or perhaps when Jesus called the people who didn't follow the "dead" he was actually suggesting that dead people would bury the deat. Or maybe when Paul said that we will be given life as Jesus was given life the moment we accept the Savior, he was saying that our heart would start beating, we would start breathing, and our brains would begin to show brainwaves again. In fact, that must be what he means. Let's take it that way. From now on, I'm going to check people for a pulse and if they have one, I'll know they must be saved and given the EXACT same kind of life as the resurrection.

Matthew 8:21Another disciple said to him, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father."
22But Jesus told him, "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead."

That Jesus and his suggesting that dead people would bury dead people. He couldn't possibly have referenced a different form of death than natural death. No, that's impossible. Perhaps if he were in this thread, you'd have spent several days arguing over his using the word twice in the same sentence in two different ways. Of course, he isn't in this thread, because he's naturally dead.

Romans 8:6The mind of sinful man[e] is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace;

*gasp* Paul does it too. That's impossible. Ressurection from the dead must mean a physical resurrection because the Bible never references any OTHER kind of death. That would be absurd.

Romans8:10But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness.

See, this is where you stop arguing fallacies and admit I kicking your butt all over this forum.

Have you actually used a concordance, before?

Since we are dealing with a language that is no longer being used in the same form, we have to do certain things... we find our definitions both within AND without the text we are analysing.

This is one of the reasons many scholars have a problem with Paul - he had a bad habit of inventing phrases, that just do not appear anywhere else.

So - we find what a word historically means, through the scripture and through other sources. Thus, our 'definition' in the concordance, will allow for a 'meaning'... and some 'lesser meanings' or 'special applications'.

The word we are studying means something along the lines of 'raise up'... and can specifically be used as a reference to 'raise up... the dead' BECAUSE of the context in which it is found IN SCRIPTURE. It is contextual... it doesn't DEFINE the meaning.

An example: Wicked is taken to mean cruel, evil or bad. Yet, I have seen things described as 'wicked' to mean they are very GOOD. The 'meaning' of the word is 'bad', but it has some special applications.

So - Jesus 'rises up'. It does not make any other comment to the procedure, except, from the context, that Jesus WAS dead, and now he is rising.

Does that mean he is risen back to (literal) life? Not at all - our modern mythology is filled with visions of ghosts 'rising up' from the dead, to ascend to heaven. The ONLY thing implied, is that Jesus got up.

At the same time, something has changed. Jesus was man and god... and after the resurrection, he was god. Ths - he is not constrained by mortal mundane flesh.

He can appear in closed rooms, he can have hands placed inside a mortal wound, we can appear without flesh entirely, appearing just as light (and/or a voice). He can travel through Hell, and he can reside in Heaven. This is not 'normal' flesh.

This whole argument is ridiculous. TSE took a perfectly acceptable use of the word used the fallacy of equivocation OVER AND OVER and hijacked the entire thread over it. We were having an excellent conversation until our friendly neighborhood troll showed up. There is no way he's not trolling.

He sees example after example after example of the resurrection of Jesus representing a return to something other than natural life, example after example after example of the Bible using the word dead to reference natural death and spiritual death so obviously references to death can mean different things, and example after example after examples of the Bible using life to mean both natural life and spiritual life so obviously resurrection could mean (and according to scripture does mean) become alive in a way that is wholly different than the resurrection of the 12-year-old girl or Lazarus. Paul and Jesus both refer to the living body as spiritually dead. Paul references the resurrection of Jesus as possible to happen to use while we are still living. There is just no way that he could continue this argument in the interest of actually making a point. The design here is clear. He is trying to prevent a real discussion. I find his efforts pretty pathetic.

Have you actually used a concordance, before?


Yes, frequently.
Have you?

Since we are dealing with a language that is no longer being used in the same form, we have to do certain things... we find our definitions both within AND without the text we are analysing.

Agreed.

This is one of the reasons many scholars have a problem with Paul - he had a bad habit of inventing phrases, that just do not appear anywhere else.

So - we find what a word historically means, through the scripture and through other sources. Thus, our 'definition' in the concordance, will allow for a 'meaning'... and some 'lesser meanings' or 'special applications'.


Agreed.

The word we are studying means something along the lines of 'raise up'... and can specifically be used as a reference to 'raise up... the dead' BECAUSE of the context in which it is found IN SCRIPTURE. It is contextual... it doesn't DEFINE the meaning.

An example: Wicked is taken to mean cruel, evil or bad. Yet, I have seen things described as 'wicked' to mean they are very GOOD. The 'meaning' of the word is 'bad', but it has some special applications.


Agreed.

So - Jesus 'rises up'. It does not make any other comment to the procedure, except, from the context, that Jesus WAS dead, and now he is rising.


Alright, in the interest of deconstructing this, we can start there.
Jesus was dead.
Jesus rises.

Does that mean he is risen back to (literal) life? Not at all - our modern mythology is filled with visions of ghosts 'rising up' from the dead, to ascend to heaven. The ONLY thing implied, is that Jesus got up.

Well, we know He is not just spirit, He told us.
He comforts his disciples when they are afraid of his appraoch by demonstrating His flesh.
Clearly, he is no ghost nor spirit rising. Let's put that to rest.

So, He is risen and is flesh. Can we agree to that? Or not?

Then, your contention is that it is special flesh? Correct?

At the same time, something has changed. Jesus was man and god... and after the resurrection, he was god. Ths - he is not constrained by mortal mundane flesh.

Agreed, clearly something has changed.
Can we agree that the change is spiritual?

I can heartily agree that with this change, mortal mundane flesh will not constrain Him.

He can appear in closed rooms, he can have hands placed inside a mortal wound, we can appear without flesh entirely, appearing just as light (and/or a voice). He can travel through Hell, and he can reside in Heaven. This is not 'normal' flesh.

Why can't He make mortal mundane flesh appear in a closed room?
Why can't He have wounds in mortal mundane flesh?
Why can't He appear as light after His mortal mundane flesh ascends to Heaven?
He seemed to do the whole Hell trip before resurrecting, so I'm not sure that qualifies.
Why can't He reside in Heaven after His mortal mundane flesh ascends?

It seems to me that your entire point rests on; if Jesus is resurrected in mortal mundane flesh, that it will constrain Him somehow?

We must not agree on what it means to say mortal mundane flesh will not constrain Him.

This whole argument is ridiculous. TSE took a perfectly acceptable...


What does the T in TSE stand for?

What does the T in TSE stand for?

The. For some reason I decided your name had a 'the' in it, and I never looked to check. It will be SE from now on.

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?


A dog can't be moral, it's not a human being.

Everybody has different morals.

People who follow a certain religion will have morals that mirror that religion.

They derive there morals from there religion.

People who don't have a religion derive there morals from televison, cereal boxes, and fortune cookies.

Agreed. Laws (moral or otherwise) have always been more to prevent casual straying, and to offer a rebuke to the stray, than to guide the 'good'.
Another of my favorite quotes: "A man must have a pretty poor moral sense if he needs religion to make a gentleman of him." (probably also not Disreali; life is too short to look up sources of one-liners.)

Someone, a long time ago in this thread, said that a moral person could follow religion as a moral code (i.e. a convenient reference) if that religion's code coincides with that person's already existing inner moral sense. I agree with that. In fact, that's how I picked my religion. You can tell if the religion expresses your own understanding of right and wrong by whether any of its code "feels" wrong to you. For instance, if a religious moral code says homosexuality is immoral, and you just can't shake the feeling that that's a wrong attitude to take, then that code is not in harmony with your own. You should question the religious code as much as you would question yourself.

That's why I reject the idea that we can exercise free will by "choosing to obey" as someone (long ago, here) suggested. I think that's just choosing to give up responsibility for your actions -- an inherently irresponsible and, thus, immoral decision.

A dog can't be moral, it's not a human being.

Everybody has different morals.

People who follow a certain religion will have morals that mirror that religion.

They derive there morals from there religion.

People who don't have a religion derive there morals from televison, cereal boxes, and fortune cookies.

To throw a cat in amongst the pigeons, why can a dog not be moral?

If morality is about leading the best possible life that one can, then surely it is possible for a dog to lead the best possible life that it can, in dog terms.

The assumption that morality is purely human, is based on the assumption that only humans are intentional beings. I see. however, plenty of evidence that other animals have desires and intentions, have even hopes and dreams. Given this it is clearly possible that they too can have evaluative states, in which they judge things to be god or bad. The standards by which they would make these judgements would not be the same as we humans use, but the mere possibility that they make such judgements admits to the possibility of their having an equivalent to our moral judgement.

I would suggest that we can only be moral by ourselves, by which I mean within ourselves.

But I was wondering if one can be moral to themselves. Can a behavior that only has effect on oneself truly be moral? In the end any behavior of that sort can only be self serving.

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.

Well, I agree with most of that. I stated that I am not one to judge morality, it would largely be impossible for me to judge morality, if someone wanted to judge my morality, I would probably take offense.

But if someone has morality in their justifications, why should we not judge others on the practicality of their actions. Instead of saying, "That was wrong," why can't we say "That was harmful", or "That wasn't beneficial."

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 am in complete agreement with this. Morality is inherently internal to the individual, outside of the individual, morality is meaningless.

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?

I cannot put forth a single governing moral constant, that is not possible as I have already said that a)morality is inherently internal, b)morality should be governed by reason and experience, and that is also completely personal.

But I was wondering if one can be moral to themselves. Can a behavior that only has effect on oneself truly be moral? In the end any behavior of that sort can only be self serving.
Well, I have no problem with the principle of enlightened self-interest. One might say that one can privately exercise morals by sticking to a moral code and denying oneself something, even if no one else would be hurt if you indulged. But even that might be self serving, to the extent that you are benefitted by the satisfaction of knowing that you stuck to your moral code. Like, if you were stranded in NOLA after Katrina but didn't steal food because stealing is against your morals; you'd starve but you could die feeling smugly pleased with yourself. I don't see that as a weakness of morality, though. On the contrary, I see it as a strength, a selling point. If I help someone and, by doing so, also help myself, that's what I call a win-win situation. Everybody happy. By this standard, we might say that a moral person always helps himself by helping others. So it's always done for the reward, but for a truly moral person, the reward is instant and inherent in the action -- the doing of it is its own reward. It's not done to earn some future reward or avoid some future punishment.

Well, I agree with most of that. I stated that I am not one to judge morality, it would largely be impossible for me to judge morality, if someone wanted to judge my morality, I would probably take offense.

But if someone has morality in their justifications, why should we not judge others on the practicality of their actions. Instead of saying, "That was wrong," why can't we say "That was harmful", or "That wasn't beneficial."
We could easily say those things, if we don't mind talking like Vulcans. To my mind, when we're talking morality, "wrong" is just an extreme condition of "harmful" or "not beneficial." You carry those states to a certain length and they morph into just "wrong."

I am in complete agreement with this. Morality is inherently internal to the individual, outside of the individual, morality is meaningless.


I cannot put forth a single governing moral constant, that is not possible as I have already said that a)morality is inherently internal, b)morality should be governed by reason and experience, and that is also completely personal.
Or if "meaningless" is too strong, I'd settle for "irrelevant." I see it this way:

There are two different contexts in which we can ask whether morality matters: our personal inner reality, and our external social relationships.

In our personal inner reality, morality is part of the landscape of the self -- one of the factors that we use to understand and define ourselves to ourselves. The degree to which it matters to us is part of our self definition.

In our external social relationships, all that matters is what we do. Our morality becomes irrelevant in practical terms. We really only mention it when we are trying to explain how we define ourselves to someone else -- but they have no way of telling whether we're being truthful or not, so it really is just so much talk until it is either backed up or contradicted by our actions.

EDIT: To clarify my position a little, I should mention that I have known many people of quite interesting characters. I have known people who claim to be rigorously moral but who actually lie, cheat, steal, and hurt people all the time. I have also known people who claim to be the scum of the earth and put themselves down about their vices all the time (and they do indulge in vices), but in fact, these people would do anything, make any personal sacrifice, to help another, even a stranger, without being asked.

Sorry for the dela VO, but Sleep and RL have to happen

I have been homeless for the last three days, so there are no hard feelings.

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.

The lack of reasonable results does not imply a lack of reason. Nevertheless you are correct that reason does not cause a person to act, but I would say that it controls how they act. The three year old may not have the necessary knowledge or faculties to make a good decision, but an adult can certainly override their immediate desire for chocolate in favor of a long-term goal of health.

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.)

Alright, cast off external moral judgements, we cannot say affirmatively whether one is being moral or not. Why does that stop us from judging what would actually constitute moral behavior? Especially if actions are amoral, and morality was in the justification, why couldn't we say "This would have been a moral justification"?

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)

So you are saying that people are moral when they act in ways that they think others would want them to act? Morality is based on the gain of perceived approval? That seems counterintuitive to me, especially regarding the issue of the preist.

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 cannot agree with your assessment of the preist. The preist assumes that he is doing harm, and you are making your assessment assuming that he isn't doing harm. Your assessment relies on the nature of religion more than the nature of the act.

Now, I do agree with the last sentence. I think morality does lie in the effects we have on those around us. But I think that it is the desired effect, and not the actual effect that determines a person's morality. I simply cannot wrap my head around the idea that someone who intends harm is moral if the consequenses of the action are still beneficial.

And I will stick with desire and intent as being essential to the moral field.

Wait, isn't that a u-turn? If desire and intent are essential, then how is the preist being moral in holding back absolution? Certainly his intent is to condemn the other individual to hell, so why is he moral if intent is essential?

Well, I have no problem with the principle of enlightened self-interest. One might say that one can privately exercise morals by sticking to a moral code and denying oneself something, even if no one else would be hurt if you indulged. But even that might be self serving, to the extent that you are benefitted by the satisfaction of knowing that you stuck to your moral code. Like, if you were stranded in NOLA after Katrina but didn't steal food because stealing is against your morals; you'd starve but you could die feeling smugly pleased with yourself. I don't see that as a weakness of morality, though. On the contrary, I see it as a strength, a selling point. If I help someone and, by doing so, also help myself, that's what I call a win-win situation. Everybody happy. By this standard, we might say that a moral person always helps himself by helping others. So it's always done for the reward, but for a truly moral person, the reward is instant and inherent in the action -- the doing of it is its own reward. It's not done to earn some future reward or avoid some future punishment.

I agree with what you have said, but it doesn't address my point. I was referring to morals that only have an effect on yourself. Is it moral to want to improve yourself? You are saying that it is moral to want to improve yourself if you do it by improving others. However, it seems that you would say that the morality comes from the improving of others, not the improving of oneself.

We could easily say those things, if we don't mind talking like Vulcans. To my mind, when we're talking morality, "wrong" is just an extreme condition of "harmful" or "not beneficial." You carry those states to a certain length and they morph into just "wrong."

I am seperating morality from what can be judged. Since I am trying to tie intent to morality and we cannot judge intent, then we also cannot judge morality. So I am pointing out that moral judgements are not necessary, as we can make practical judgements.

Or if "meaningless" is too strong, I'd settle for "irrelevant." I see it this way:

There are two different contexts in which we can ask whether morality matters: our personal inner reality, and our external social relationships.

In our personal inner reality, morality is part of the landscape of the self -- one of the factors that we use to understand and define ourselves to ourselves. The degree to which it matters to us is part of our self definition.

In our external social relationships, all that matters is what we do. Our morality becomes irrelevant in practical terms. We really only mention it when we are trying to explain how we define ourselves to someone else -- but they have no way of telling whether we're being truthful or not, so it really is just so much talk until it is either backed up or contradicted by our actions.

I very much agree. Morality is internal, practicality is external. If we are to judge others, we must do it based on practicality and not morality.

However, are you trying to tie this into the initial topic, and if so, do you use it to disagree with me?

I have been homeless for the last three days, so there are no hard feelings.
I hope you have somewhere to crash now.

The lack of reasonable results does not imply a lack of reason. Nevertheless you are correct that reason does not cause a person to act, but I would say that it controls how they act. The three year old may not have the necessary knowledge or faculties to make a good decision, but an adult can certainly override their immediate desire for chocolate in favor of a long-term goal of health.
If reason does not cause a person to act then it cannot control how they act. What it can do is present potential courses of action and offer fr consideration future possible states. The choice between these depends on desire though. The adult will override the childs desire if, and only if, the child's immediate happiness is not a goal of the adult. (Think grandparent vs parent here.) What the goal of the adult is, with respect to the child will depend upon their own view of their role, and the view of others of their role, in the upbringing of the child.

Alright, cast off external moral judgements, we cannot say affirmatively whether one is being moral or not. Why does that stop us from judging what would actually constitute moral behavior? Especially if actions are amoral, and morality was in the justification, why couldn't we say "This would have been a moral justification"?
We can judge that we believe some action to have been moral. What we can not do is directly judge whether the action is or is not, in fact, moral. We can be persuaded by others that some action is right (or as more often happens - wrong). The judgement of what would actually constitute moral behaviour becomes a purely theoretical exercise. It can play no part in our actual moral evaluations if it depends on our being aware of the intention of the other.

So you are saying that people are moral when they act in ways that they think others would want them to act? Morality is based on the gain of perceived approval? That seems counterintuitive to me, especially regarding the issue of the preist.
Yes. It is counterintuitive, but it seems to me to be as effective a description of our behaviour with respect to morality as exists. With regard to the priest, he is being moral - regardless of his internal intent - because he is acting in a way that others will aprove of.

I cannot agree with your assessment of the preist. The preist assumes that he is doing harm, and you are making your assessment assuming that he isn't doing harm. Your assessment relies on the nature of religion more than the nature of the act.
The harm or not does depend upon your assessment of religion, true. However the principle that it is morally acceptable for even the 'guardians' of our moral behaviour to act contrary to their internal beliefs implies that the effect of the action has to be the significant factor.

Now, I do agree with the last sentence. I think morality does lie in the effects we have on those around us. But I think that it is the desired effect, and not the actual effect that determines a person's morality. I simply cannot wrap my head around the idea that someone who intends harm is moral if the consequenses of the action are still beneficial.
To intend harm to someone who is morally bad is bad then? I do not think that I could adopt a moral system whereby I could never desire harm to another, regardless of their actions. I prefer a moral system that recognises that we are humans and not angels. I prefer a system that is possible for me to adopt, that is practical, that responds to the demands of life. A system that says that I should never wish harm to another is simply not going to hold. Why? Because I will desire harm to the man who rapes my sister, to the man who steals the results of my work etc. I am human.

Wait, isn't that a u-turn? If desire and intent are essential, then how is the preist being moral in holding back absolution? Certainly his intent is to condemn the other individual to hell, so why is he moral if intent is essential?
Desire and intent are the motors of our actions. Our characters are put on show for all to see, depicted in our actions and words. Desire and intent are parts of our character. The priest had the desire and the intent to condemn an evil man to hell. Is that morally wrong? What is excused here is not his desire and intent, but his deception. Whather that is right or not is open to debate (note that I did not argue that the priest was right in his actions). I am opposing desire and intent to reason here. reason does not reflect who you are, what kind of person you are. Reason is universal, it is the same for all of us. You can judge a person to be right or wrong concerning matters of reason, but you can not judge them to be good or bad. It is not one individual action that alows us to make moral judgements. Klaus Barbie could have been very kind to his mother, but does that entitle us to judge that he was a good man? No. We have to consider the entirety of his actions of which we are aware to date. In his case he comes out as being bad. If you saw Mahatma Ghandi smack a child you could judge him as being evil, nasty, bad. Wait though, look at his whole behaviour, not the one incident. Then make your judgement.

I agree with what you have said, but it doesn't address my point. I was referring to morals that only have an effect on yourself. Is it moral to want to improve yourself? You are saying that it is moral to want to improve yourself if you do it by improving others. However, it seems that you would say that the morality comes from the improving of others, not the improving of oneself
I just missed this wrinkle. Now that I've got it, I'd have to say that it may be beneficial to you to improve yourself, but I don't know if I'd call that moral, per se, unless your method of self-improvement also happens to be encouraged by a moral code you adhere to, thus putting it on your list of specifically moral actions. But when I said you can help yourself by helping others and still count yourself as moral, I meant that helping yourself does not detract from the moral-ness of an action, not that helping yourself is necessarily moral in and of itself, no matter how you do it.

Let's say you're a Buddhist, and you renounce the world and retreat into a meditative hermitage to seek Nirvana. Is that a moral action? I've heard debate among Buddhists about this. Only an individual can consciously experience Nirvana, and this experience cannot be communicated to anyone else. Does your attainment of enlightenment help anyone else? If not, does that make it immoral or amoral to seek enlightenment for your own sake? There are some who say that every individual who attains enlightenment contributes to the spiritual liberation of the entire universe, so in that sense, your isolated meditative quest is helpful to others -- but is that why you did it? And perhaps the most important question of all: Does it matter?

This is a difficult question. I'd say that, if you are the only person affected by your actions then, in my opinion, helping or improving yourself is moral only according the way you use morality to define yourself. You would experience it as good and right if it is in accord with your understanding of yourself. You would experience it as bad and wrong if it violates your understanding of yourself. Does that count as moral? I have no idea. There are lots of other things it could count as, too.

I am seperating morality from what can be judged. Since I am trying to tie intent to morality and we cannot judge intent, then we also cannot judge morality. So I am pointing out that moral judgements are not necessary, as we can make practical judgements.
This works fine when judging the actions of others.

But when it comes to judging or choosing our own actions, there is a fundamental problem with "practical judgments", i.e. utilitarian pragmatism. It is possible to justify as good and right actions that in fact create terrible destruction and suffering, like war, political oppression, and other means of trying to benefit the most people. Utilitarian pragmatism allows you to sacrifice the few for the sake of the many. It can force you to make "devil's bargains" and leave you surrounded by horrors in real life. This is the very situation that has us still debating whether it was moral or immoral to drop the atom bombs on Japan. Look what that action did -- it ended the war and brought peace, but it unleashed demons that threaten us to this day.

I believe there are times when we have to sacrifice practical benefit for the sake of doing what we think is right or, more important perhaps, *not* doing something we think is wrong. Sometimes, we should make these decisions even if the outcome will be bad for us and others, because the price of getting the practical benefit would be too high, or the wrong kind of price. And in such cases, who decides what's right or wrong? We, ourselves. If a church tells me it's morally right to burn heretics, but my inner morality says that's wrong, I *must* disobey the church even if that means that I, myself, will be burned as a heretic. So, to be moral in such a circumstance, I must make an impractical judgment. I must choose between an intangible benefit (doing the right thing) over a practical one (preserving my life and perhaps even the lives or fortunes of my family).

I very much agree. Morality is internal, practicality is external. If we are to judge others, we must do it based on practicality and not morality.

However, are you trying to tie this into the initial topic, and if so, do you use it to disagree with me?
No, I'm not disagreeing with you, except to the extent that you might argue that nobody else can look to an external source for codification or affirmation of their morals, either.

Just as they can't know what code you follow in your own head, so you cannot know why they choose this or that religion or secular code to follow. Just because they follow a code, it does not mean that they follow it blindly. As has been said, if a person discovers that a given moral code is in harmony with their inner morality, then they may use that code as a convenient way to express their morality to others and as a convenient "checklist" for themselves in standard situations.

For instance, I'm an animist. I was born into a non-observant Catholic-Protestant family who left me pretty much to my own devices, spiritually speaking (not including the endlessly wordy ethical debates over dinner, but you probably could have guessed that ;)). I simply could not accept the moral codes of the churches my family sort-of attended because I just kept running into these vast areas in which I felt and thought they were wrong. I had problems with the concept of sin, with the presumed relationship of humanity to the world and to god, and with the concepts of both divine and temporal authority. Plus I felt that the codes for moral behavior were arbitrary. I went through deism, Buddhism, atheism, several philosophies, Tantrism, and neo-paganism before finally discovering that animism contained a code of conduct and attitude that matched what I felt inside and gave me a language with which to express this aspect of myself in my life. So I added animism to my self-definition.

If you think that external codes are necessarily artificial, you might say that I am making an immoral decision to follow an arbitrary authority that makes judgments for me -- except that animism rejects judgmentalism as presumptuous, and demands that we take personal responsibility for all of our own decisions. This is the number one factor that made it work for me.

I hope you have somewhere to crash now.

I slept at a couple of friends houses while I was homeless, but I am sort of moved into a new place now.

If reason does not cause a person to act then it cannot control how they act. What it can do is present potential courses of action and offer fr consideration future possible states. The choice between these depends on desire though. The adult will override the childs desire if, and only if, the child's immediate happiness is not a goal of the adult. (Think grandparent vs parent here.) What the goal of the adult is, with respect to the child will depend upon their own view of their role, and the view of others of their role, in the upbringing of the child.

There is no reason that the impetus must also be the guide. Withholding chocolate would be the reasonable extension of a desire. Because the parent desires a healthy child, they reason that withholding chocolate is the best course of action. I cannot think of any parent that I know that has a strong desire to not see their children eat chocolate.

We can judge that we believe some action to have been moral. What we can not do is directly judge whether the action is or is not, in fact, moral. We can be persuaded by others that some action is right (or as more often happens - wrong). The judgement of what would actually constitute moral behaviour becomes a purely theoretical exercise. It can play no part in our actual moral evaluations if it depends on our being aware of the intention of the other.

So it is still possible to judge what would be/have been the morally correct justification or action, it is just not comparable to the events and circumstances that are apparent.

Yes. It is counterintuitive, but it seems to me to be as effective a description of our behaviour with respect to morality as exists. With regard to the priest, he is being moral - regardless of his internal intent - because he is acting in a way that others will aprove of.

That would force all of morality into the role of social norms. There would be nothing that was moral, only things that are acceptable. I think that view is very cynical, and you would have a hard time convincing me that morality is nothing more than what the people around you think is acceptable behavior.

The harm or not does depend upon your assessment of religion, true. However the principle that it is morally acceptable for even the 'guardians' of our moral behaviour to act contrary to their internal beliefs implies that the effect of the action has to be the significant factor.

Yes, I was only disagreeing with your assessment of the preist, not its effects on your argument.

To intend harm to someone who is morally bad is bad then? I do not think that I could adopt a moral system whereby I could never desire harm to another, regardless of their actions. I prefer a moral system that recognises that we are humans and not angels. I prefer a system that is possible for me to adopt, that is practical, that responds to the demands of life. A system that says that I should never wish harm to another is simply not going to hold. Why? Because I will desire harm to the man who rapes my sister, to the man who steals the results of my work etc. I am human.

Being fallible is not a get out of jail free card. Because we cannot always accurately judge or follow the tenets of morality, we should not simply ignore them.

I would say that revenge for its own sake is an immoral justification. If you want a free pass to be completely self-serving, I am not going to espouse a morality that gives it to you.

And let me point out that a moral system as I have described is possible to adopt, even if it cannot be externally judged. A person can take on an inner morality even if others cannot judge that morality.

You are saying that, since others cannot judge you to be moral, you do not have to act moral, that you are as moral as what you can't get away with.

Desire and intent are the motors of our actions. Our characters are put on show for all to see, depicted in our actions and words. Desire and intent are parts of our character. The priest had the desire and the intent to condemn an evil man to hell. Is that morally wrong? What is excused here is not his desire and intent, but his deception. Whather that is right or not is open to debate (note that I did not argue that the priest was right in his actions). I am opposing desire and intent to reason here. reason does not reflect who you are, what kind of person you are. Reason is universal, it is the same for all of us. You can judge a person to be right or wrong concerning matters of reason, but you can not judge them to be good or bad. It is not one individual action that alows us to make moral judgements. Klaus Barbie could have been very kind to his mother, but does that entitle us to judge that he was a good man? No. We have to consider the entirety of his actions of which we are aware to date. In his case he comes out as being bad. If you saw Mahatma Ghandi smack a child you could judge him as being evil, nasty, bad. Wait though, look at his whole behaviour, not the one incident. Then make your judgement.

How are desires and intent arrived at? Are they developed by human faculties or are we doomed by nature or God to be moral or immoral?

A dog can't be moral, it's not a human being.

Everybody has different morals.

People who follow a certain religion will have morals that mirror that religion.

They derive there morals from there religion.

People who don't have a religion derive there morals from televison, cereal boxes, and fortune cookies.

As a curiousity... can you 'prove' that ONLY 'human beings' have morals?

What about psychopaths, who literally cannot discern right from wrong... are they not human?

I like the idea that the non-religious might get their morality from cereal boxes.

My moral code is high in fiber....

Yes, frequently.
Have you?


Sarcasm?

Alright, in the interest of deconstructing this, we can start there.
Jesus was dead.
Jesus rises.


Agreed.

Well, we know He is not just spirit, He told us.


He denied being A spirit, didn't he? He didn't deny 'being spirit'.

He comforts his disciples when they are afraid of his appraoch by demonstrating His flesh.
Clearly, he is no ghost nor spirit rising. Let's put that to rest.


Not clear at all... the 'flesh' he shows can easily be determined to be a manifestation designed to placate his followers. The fact that Thomas can place his hands inside a mortal wound (notice that the descriptions that previously accompanied this mortal wound, are no longer being used? No blood? No water?) implies it isn't quite the SAME flesh.

So, He is risen and is flesh. Can we agree to that? Or not?


No. We can't. The text is far from certain on whether or not he is 'flesh'... certainly as WE understand (maybe even, CAN understand) it.

Then, your contention is that it is special flesh? Correct?


Indeed. There is something special about the flesh. Like... maybe, it's not 'flesh' at all.


Agreed, clearly something has changed.
Can we agree that the change is spiritual?


I'm not sure what you consdier the ramifications of 'spiritual' to be. Jesus became 'very god' (as I've heard it described)... is apotheosis 'spiritual'?

I can heartily agree that with this change, mortal mundane flesh will not constrain Him.


Do you believe that God walked in Eden? Do you believe God was clothed in mundane, manflesh when he did?


Why can't He make mortal mundane flesh appear in a closed room?
Why can't He have wounds in mortal mundane flesh?
Why can't He appear as light after His mortal mundane flesh ascends to Heaven?
He seemed to do the whole Hell trip before resurrecting, so I'm not sure that qualifies.
Why can't He reside in Heaven after His mortal mundane flesh ascends?

It seems to me that your entire point rests on; if Jesus is resurrected in mortal mundane flesh, that it will constrain Him somehow?

We must not agree on what it means to say mortal mundane flesh will not constrain Him.

Not really - my argument is more about WHY would Jesus have 'mortal, mundane' flesh - once he was 'god'?

people equate morality to religion... it is all relative

maybe an athiest could give you a straiter answer, but most athiest are f***ing a**holes, i wouldn't trust an answer from them... Then that leaves agnostics.... no opinion on them, and that is exactly what you'll get from those border lining flip floppers

people equate morality to religion... it is all relative

maybe an athiest could give you a straiter answer, but most athiest are f***ing a**holes, i wouldn't trust an answer from them... Then that leaves agnostics.... no opinion on them, and that is exactly what you'll get from those border lining flip floppers
I don't agree with extending the definition of agnostic to include indecisive people. Indecision is just that --agnostic theists, on the other hand, are firm in their belief that god is unknown and unknowable.

people equate morality to religion... it is all relative

maybe an athiest could give you a straiter answer, but most athiest are f***ing a**holes, i wouldn't trust an answer from them... Then that leaves agnostics.... no opinion on them, and that is exactly what you'll get from those border lining flip floppers

SOME people might equate morality to religion... investigating that, was pretty much the point of the thread.

As an Atheist (and, therefore, probably a fstarstarstaring astarstarhole (apparently)) I have at least offered some thought... rather than basically blasting everyone I don't match platforms with....

Sarcasm?


Of course. Don't insult my intelligence and I'll grant you the same courtesy.


He denied being A spirit, didn't he? He didn't deny 'being spirit'.

You need to 'flesh' out that thought.
What does that mean to you?
He's not A spirit, with my understanding of A spirit meaning a being that is purely spirit and not flesh. i.e. ghosts, shades, perhaps angels and demons?

But to my understanding, we're all spirit, just clothed in flesh. So I don't understand the significance you place on not denying 'being spirit'.

Not clear at all... the 'flesh' he shows can easily be determined to be a manifestation designed to placate his followers. The fact that Thomas can place his hands inside a mortal wound (notice that the descriptions that previously accompanied this mortal wound, are no longer being used? No blood? No water?) implies it isn't quite the SAME flesh.


It's not clear that He is not a ghost nor a spirit?
Why the flesh is manifested is a different discussion that would need to follow this one if you want to go there.

The fact that Thomas can place his hand in the wounds is meant to prove that Jesus is flesh. I won't attempt to define the reasons the flesh may have been manifested, nor define what kind of flesh, nor if it is the same flesh for now.

Can we agree that there is flesh for Thomas to put his hand into?

I'm going to insist we stop calling them 'mortal wounds' unless you'd like to support that somehow. My very cursory search didn't turn up any reference to 'mortal wounds'. If I didn't look deep enough, please enlighten me.

Indeed. There is something special about the flesh. Like... maybe, it's not 'flesh' at all.


It's not flesh? Or it is special flesh?
Regardless, you're inserting a huge maybe into the discussion now.
I can entertain the idea with you, but I'll need significantly more than a maybe to accept it.

I'm not sure what you consdier the ramifications of 'spiritual' to be. Jesus became 'very god' (as I've heard it described)... is apotheosis 'spiritual'?


I don't see how it can be otherwise.
The point I was attempting to find common ground on is that regardless of our views regarding the flesh or lack thereof that has risen, the change of significance regarding this resurrection, the apotheosis even, is a spiritual change.

Yes?

Do you believe that God walked in Eden? Do you believe God was clothed in mundane, manflesh when he did?


Assuming a literal Garden of Eden story:
1. Yes
2. No

I don't see how your questions relate to what I wrote:
"I can heartily agree that with this change, mortal mundane flesh will not constrain Him."



Not really - my argument is more about WHY would Jesus have 'mortal, mundane' flesh - once he was 'god'?


Why? That's an entirely different question.
Shouldn't we ascertain whether it is there or not before we ask why it is or isn't?

My first thought regarding Why? is parallel to your own mentioned above, likely to comfort and reassure His followers.