yguy

You might as well ask why you must be yourself.

IMO, all that stuff became part of the terrestrial experience when Adam disobeyed God.

I've had those too. That's not what I'm talking about. It's unlikely you would have such an experience listening to music, especially if you're caught up in the sensations music tends to produce.

So if my values told me it was my duty to save your daughter from her sins by burning her at the stake, you would feel no sense of injustice?

Interesting. Charles Manson held a similar belief.

As evidence, I offer the fact that our founders took the audacious step of creating a government intended to be self-limiting, and to ensure it made the unprecedented move of guaranteeing its citizens the right to bear arms; that we demonstrated our capacity to admit a mistake by abolishing slavery; that we stopped the Axis powers from ravaging the world and Hitler from exterminating the Jews, and, having in 1945 gained unquestioned military superiority, not only refrained from using it - as our enemies would have - to conquer the world, but helped our enemies recover. The Japanese in particular are far better off for our influence, Hiroshima notwithstanding.

Again, show evidence that the Israelites only THOUGHT they did God's bidding and we'll have something to discuss.

Why would you feel bad about an act that isn't unjust?

"However, AFAIK, the Judaeo-Christian paradigm is unique in that it contains the story of Adam and Eve, their fall from grace, and the redemption of mankind from that fall. I'm not aware that other religions address the compulsive nature of sin."

Evidently the answer didn't satisfy you, but it's the best I can do.

philechat

Because I can't be anything but myself. To be myself is inevitable that is to speak.
So you do think it is Adam that caused all the sufferings in the other animals? Why do animals suffer if they never disobeyed God?
But why isn't self-reflection a kind of thought? I mean "thinking" generically, not necessarily linguistic thought.
Why do you ask it? Did I not say that it would be unjust in my opinion? Or am I not clear enough? My value system (which I acquired through my experience and my instinct) dictates what my opinions are.
Ad hominem.
Oh you think the USA is the first country in the world to ban slavery? Hardly true. Most of Europe had no slavery before the USA banned the institution of slavery. And you think the USA is the eternally just world police? Ask a Palestinian, an Iraqi, or a dweller of Detroit slums. And what about WWII? Was not the USA reluctant to fight against the Nazis, not until the Japanese decided to throw some fireballs in Pearl Harbor? Not to mention the USA's financial and political support of Chiang Kai-Shek, Ariel Sheron, Osama Bin Laden (yes, during the Cold War) and other ilks.
Show me that the Spanish only THOUGHT they did God's bidding and we'll have something to discuss.
I feel bad about an act which in my opinion is unjust according to my value system, do you get it?
Well, I've already refuted the importance of this concept (remember our old friend Buddha?) Why would a guilt trip be the most important spiritual problem of humanity?

yguy

I don't know. It's not a question that will keep me awake at night.

I don't see how observation OF thought can BE thought.

So any action you took to prevent me from executing your daughter would be based on your opinion? How is that a more sound basis for action than the Conquistadores had?

I didn't say they were the first.

The Palestinians nurture in their children a murderous hatred of Israel, and countenance the use of children as munitions, whose parents accept compensation for it from Hussein. They're getting treated better than they deserve.

Depends on which ones you ask. I don't guess those who've had family members tortured to death by Saddam are complaining overmuch.

Most of those people are victims of leftist politicians who disempower them by addicting them to largesse from the public treasury.

Why was that a problem? Had we supported him to the hilt, maybe we could have saved a few million Chinese lives from the bloodlust of Mao.

I don't have a problem with it. I only regret that the murderous jackal Arafat hasn't been assassinated.

Not familiar with the details of all these complaints, but stack our record up against any other country, and it becomes plain that the world is a lot better off with America than without it.

Just off the top of my head, they presumed to convert at the point of a sword. God doesn't take conscripts.

Is there then any particular reason why bystanders who watch me having my way with your daughter should find your opinion interesting if it differs from theirs?

This would be, I believe, about the third time around. Thanks, but no thanks.

philechat

Don't you think, "well, what I thought in the past was...and what about what I did two seconds ago..." Are they not thoughts?
And also from my own feelings about her. If you can't deal with morality that is based purely on human compassion, then I guess nothing will stop you from murdering babies unless God commanded it to be wrong.
Alright, then we agree.
Unfounded assertions. The leftist conspiricy theory and the Palestinian conspiracy theory? We can do better than that....even the naturally pro-Israeli Taiwanese government know there's something wrong with the government of Sheron.
Right, exchanged with the blood-lust of Chiang Kai-Shek? To have twenty thousand Taiwanese killed in a week's time by his troops? No thanks.
Yes, go on with your resentment and conspiracy theory. Let it burn, let it fly to God's heaven. Look at the data by themselves, won't you?
Yes, I believe you. :banghead:
What? Did not the ancient Israelites killed many Canaanite tribes entirely? And wasn't the Spanish doing the exact same thing? By what standard do you judge God to be involved in one and not the other?
Because they have feelings for other human beings, perhaps? Not that everyone is cold-blooded by nature. Even elephants mourn for their deads, why wouldn't humans do the same?
Then it is settled.

Alonzo Fyfe

This is a bit late, but I have been giving this question some thought.

Well, murder is wrongful killing, and the claim that wrongful killing is wrong is an empty tautology. The real question is: "What counts as murder?" It is here where we find that theistic morality is a codification of ancient prejudices and bigotries. Effectively, the only thing that counts as murder is the killing of a member of the same tribe who has good standing in the eyes of the authorities in power. Nothing else counts as murder.

Even then, saying that theistic ethics is the codification of the bigotries and prejudice of pre-literate societies does not mean that they they got everything wrong. Just as with science, they got a few things right. (Ancient Greeks correctly deduced that the earth was round and that things were made of atoms.)

But it is as much a mistake to hold modern society to the the prejudices of these pre-literate culture as it is to hold us to their science. The institutions that have been tossed out over time -- inquisitions and crusades, "the divine right of kings", the abolution of slavery, equal rights for women and children -- have all gone against religious teaching and been, in effect, the tossing off of these ancient prejudices and bigotries. It is progress that ought to continue. Theisitic ethics is as much a constant drag on our moral development as it has been on our scientific development.

yguy

Indeed...but in the state of mind I'm talking about, you can SEE those thoughts in your mind's eye, just like watching a parade.

Why would compassion dictate that? Susan Atkins, the Manson family member, said at one point that it was love that caused her to murder Sharon Tate, that she was ending a shallow and useless life.

And, BTW, since you think there is no such thing as objective justice, and therefore no injustice outside the realm of your own opinion, the concept of murder is meaningless outside of that realm - unless the rest of us are to be subject to your whims.

There probably is. There's something wrong with every government that ever was...but to grant the Pals anything like moral equivalence with the Israelis is unutterably insane.

Mao murdered tens of millions of his own people. On what basis would you put Chiang in his league?

What data? If you mean that the Israelis have killed many more Pals than Pals have Israelis, it's irrelevant. The Pals are a throwaway people in the eyes of the Arabs, who are using them to get to Israel, which is surrounded by countries with varying degrees of hatred for it. They would be within their rights to do to the Pals what the Pals would like to do to them: drive the lot of them into the sea.

I just told you: there is no record of forced conversion by Israelites in the OT. That by itself doesn't mean the killing was God-sanctioned, but it is evidence that it could have been. By contrast, the fact that the Inquisitors did it shows conclusively that it was NOT God-sanctioned, IMO.

What if they don't? There are plenty of instances where people have been attacked and crowds stood and watched. Is there nothing unjust happening there?

Mourning the dead doesn't do them any good - it's for the sake of the living. And antelope, seeing one of their own being taken by a lion, will go back to grazing like nothing happened.

yguy

Where do you get that idea? An exemplary C&V, if you please.

Would that the Netherlands had been so burdened. Perhaps they would not be the prime candidate to be the first European nation to come under Islamic sharia law.

And I don't know that Theistic ethics slowed Newton or Einstein down any.

pleasant_darktwist

First let me say that this is my first post, and I hope those involved will not think me flip, presumptuous, or rude by injecting my opinion in this interesting discussion.

From reading this thread, it seems to me there is an argument about authority.

Christianity points to God as an authority, a meter stick, if you will, by which actions are measured. Common examples include the ten commandments, creation, Jesus life, death and return, letters of Paul, etc.

Nonbelievers believe that this absolute moral authority does not exist, or that if it is, it is not moral, good, or just. Examples are given such as the crusades, and other religious atrocities.

The next level of argument, presupposes that man, either as an agent of a god, higher power, society, or themsleves, would be capable of properly interpreting any such imperatives, or creating imperatives that can be objectively viewed as just. Dangerous to say the least.

The problem with any religious point of view, is that it is in many ways impervious to logical or reasonable attack. Dogma requires that belief be absolute, automatically discounting criticism or other solutions. It also allows very conveniently for a person to employ the Nuremberg Defense, whereby one says, "I was just following orders." Essentially, if the theoretical water gets to hot, the acolyte can step back and say, "I don't know, I am not the almighty."

Or to put it more bluntly, "Go ask the invisible man, he won't tell me, and I don't ask such things."

Faith by definintion is the antithesis of logic, reason, and observation.

Take for example this exaggerated example:

God: I'm going to make a race of beings that I can control, kind of like an existential ant farm. Then, because I am a sadistic bastard, I will give them the ability to discern and choose NOT to believe in me. I will give them reason, logic, powers of observation, cognition, reproduction, the capapbilities to create a society independent of my will.

but that wasn't good enough:

God: Hmm, I'll create evil. [If one is a christian, one believes god is omnipotent, creater of ALL things] I'll create these angels, one in particular, this guy Lucifer, who will think he can depose me. Hehehe, then I will send him to this place of eternal suffering. And to top it off, everyone who uses all their powers of reason and 'figure out' that I don't exist, will be his company bwaahahahaha!

If God created all, he created Lucifer/Satan, and if God knows all, he must have known that the angel would betray him, making hell, to send people who disagreed with him. Now that's sound logic isn't it.

But I digress, I have gotten off message. My point in all this is that if God does exist, he is a sadistic, curious, meglamaniacal murderer, torturer, and all around not nice guy. If he exists. To suggest an alternative may lead one to question whether or not God is all powerful.

The rabbi Kushner, in his book "Why Bad Things Happen To Good People" reaches the conclusion that God is either all powerfull and heartless, or he has no control over the world (that whole free-will/consequence thing). Kushner chooses the latter, making God less than all powerful, not GOD. and if God is not GOD, why fear him.

Salvation is a gimmick to sell real estate, and hell is a cheap threat that we cannot escape. If the Christian God exists, then 'faith' and 'religion' seems to call upon man to forsake the things that make him human, reason, independence, free thought and action, for a paradise in the NEXT life. If it's true, It sucks, because it was set up as an intentional dichotomy from which there is no alternative.

I suppose what I am getting at is that Christianity is either fundamentally flawed, or God is not who everybody says he is. Thus to use such as a basis for a moral theory presupposes that 'God' is right, and that his will tells you what to do. We won't even talk about the bible. Even if it was once the WORD of GOD, it has been through so many additions, edits, revisions, exclusions, translations, that what we have is suspect at best, and maliciously false at worst.

However, I don't think a person alone has intrinsic moral understanding or capacity. I believe that people are inherently good: from the moment of birth, they are a clean slate. Evil is made, not born (with perhaps some exceptions). How such a child is formed, will determine his outlook, morality, etc. We are who are parents made us in many ways. Free will, choices, and so on are for another discussion, which I am prepared to delve into, if it comes to that, yet I would like to submit this as food for thought instead of ammunition. This is only my opinion, just like everybody else's is.

Perhaps somewhere there is an absolute model of existence, man has always sought order in his universe, and this always leads to the assumption that there must be a higher power than himself controlling what he does not/cannot. The alternative is to think that there is no supreme control or order, only individuals that make up the whole, each one a sentient, seperate being. Thus the forest is made of trees, there cannot be a forest without them. Does this mean though that someone must have planted and takes care of the forest: No, if one doesn't split metaphorical hairs about seeds and planters and such.

So, again, I hope none think I am presumptuous or long winded. I've just had a lot to say, and this is the first time I've really been able to express it.

Peace.

philechat

I doubt thinking is not involved in sensation. The fact that we label a given experience "a chair", "blue chair", etc., has already involved interpreting our sensory stimulus. Similar interpretive event occurs during introspection.

Yes, if one truely believe with one's compassion that killing babies are right then there is nothing to stop the person from killing babies. But Since the topic is about you killing my daughter...my feeling and my compassion of my own daughter, whom I want to be living, dictates me to stop you. As for other consequences of conflicting purposes, we always have laws trying to compromise these conflicts.
See above. In terms of conflicts of values, that's where societal laws come in. Objective morality is unnecessary outside human consensus, the checks and balances of our desires.
This I will not comment on, because one cannot judge the morality of an entire community without gross generalization. In terms of political rights, however, I will grant the Palastinians equal opportunity under the law.
I spoke that 20000 Taiwanese died in one week alone. As far as Chiang's career goes, about a hundred thousand Taiwanese people died or disappeared. Compared to Mao you may think it still be a small number, but in terms of proportions Chiang is at least as bad as Mao. (Note that Mao had no desire of taking over Taiwan after WW2, and Taiwan was granted self-governance if not for Chiang's Cairo meetings with Roosevolt. The idea of Taiwan being a territory of the PRC was a later invention)
Again speculation? Should we treat the obvious events first?
Because forced conversion is not considered by the Israelites an option for the local Canaanite tribes, and the Israelites decided to kill them all off instead. And why can't God tell the Spanish to forcefully convert the Native Americans? I don't get it.
Then they have not felt strongly enough perform a given action. Why does feelings being god-given or not be an issue of how strongly people felt about an event?
Or, the alarm calls of monkeys warning other living monkeys of enemies? The instances of dogs saving their owners? The monkeys protecting their relatives from the insults of strangers?

yguy

For you, thought and sensation may be inseparable from consciousness. For me, they are not. Trust me.

Sure, but if you're objective, you can watch it happening.

A wonderful example of this philosophy in action is Holland, which after decades of steady moral degradation is on the threshhold of adopting Islamic sharia law.

Why is generalization always gross? Is it gross generalization to say Nazi Germany was an evil nation just because there were people in it who were not evil? I don't think so.

Something which Arafat would never grant the Israelis.

I'll not be drawn into an endless discussion of historical minutiae. You know what I think. Take it or leave it.

The murderous hatred of most Arab nations for Israel is an accomplished fact.

I told you before. He doesn't want conscripts.

You evade the question. Is there an injustice or not?

I don't understand the question.

They are all responding to their programming. They can't do otherwise. Nothing admirable about that.