NonContradiction

This appears to be a false dichotomy. Are you saying that the only choice is between moral neutrality and absolute morality?

Llyricist

And I provided an argument that morality is NOT unchanging. What have you to say about that?

Furthermore, an unchanging morality falls under the category of absolute too

Llyricist

If every behavior is either Good Or Bad morally then doesn't that make morality absolute?

There are no behaviors that are not either beneficial or detrimental? Sounds absolute to me

NonContradiction

Would you mind summarizing that argument for me?


You may believe that, but I don't. I have already stated why I don't believe that to be true.

Llyricist

Yes I would. It's posted on this thread. Just because you skipped over it in your response to me doesn't mean that I have to reiterate it.
You can make any categorizing you want, just tryto find agreement that unchanging does not equal absolute around here......

NonContradiction

I would say yes, but I don't know anybody who is saying that, do you?

I will ask you again since you didn't answer my question: Why must the choice be between moral neutrality and absolute morality? If I believe that SOME actions are moral, then I am not neutral. If I believe that there are exceptions to moral rules, then I don't believe in moral absolutes. Clearly, the choice isn't just between moral neutrality and absolute morality.

Llyricist

Yes, You! You claimed that choosing between the existance of moral neutrality and absolute morality was a false dichomety. NOW you say that if every behavior is either good or bad then morality must be absolute??? You are sunk here. givce it up.

Mike

rw: Can you have one without the other?

mike: Well I suppose the one is the fruit of the other. And you can have an bad spirituality as well as good spirituality, bad science and good science. The one will lead to either bad religion or good religion, the other will lead to either bad technology or good technology. You may reply that technology is inherently neutral, but I'm not sure if that would be defensible when you consider the nuclear bomb.

rw: But which is more dependant on the other? For instance, does science require law to function?

mike: Unless you will win the funds by advertising for popular support.

rw: Does science require spirituality to function?

mike: If spirituality involves first seeing with the mind's eye or imagination before seeing with the tangible eyes.

rw: Between law, spirituality and science I do not think law and spirituality are so inseparable.

mike: I define (good) law as a system of rules agreed upon through consensus that serve to maximize the freedom of all parties. It develops when ever two or more individuals come into contact and wish that contact to be harmonious. To me (good) spirituality involves imagination, interconnectedness and rapport with humanity (which includes God), it also involves developing awareness through the senses and emotions. For me (good) science invoves testing hypotheses primarily arrived at through imagination, and for the purpose of expanding imagination, rapport and awareness. The way I define them they are all inseparable as each engages components of the other--but still useful to talk about separately. The converse of each may include nonconsensual domination (bad law), narrow-sightedness and competetive striving (bad spirituality), and pretending to test hypotheses that would tend to serve one person or group at the expense of another (bad science--e.g. the book "The Bell Curve" and eugenics).


rw: Primitive man survived on his wits…hence his science…

mike: Conscience has been described as wit.

rw: In the most primitive settings it was “might makes right”.

mike: That's an assumption since neither of us was there. But the most primative society from a Judeo-Christian perspective was Adam and his family. The first story of this civilization (Cain and Able) was to demonstrate that might did NOT make right. Ultimately Cain was an outcast from society.

rw: Science is a specific moral expression of man’s imagination.

mike: We should probably agree on definitions because to me this sentence reads: Science is a specific moral expression of man's spirituality. Much of our disagreement seems incidental to our semantic disagreement. But the fundamental disagreement seems to be that for you science is the only "way." For me it is only part of, or one manifestation of, the "way."

Yes, science has helped avoid tornados and perhaps small pox and such things (although I believe that much of our increased health involves a simple better hygiene--which in part was practiced under the law of Moses--and later abandoned during the middle ages). And Christ also calmed the wind and the waves, caused the blind to see, the lame to walk, cleansed the leper. He apparently passed this knowledge and ability onto his apostles and other followers who did the same--until they were murdered and eventually the teachings of Christ were buried, a false religion established from which we have been attempting to recover and regain what was lost. But this knowledge and ability again exists in the world today among a relatively small minority.

On guvment: It is interesting that you seem to equate governmental power and abuse with religion. Christians have typically advocated restriction of government power and size, and are largely accused of sacrificing governmental strength at the altar of big business. They've typically tried unsuccessfully to do this through the republican party (the democratic party is no better), but once americans put a fellow citizen in power--whether that citizen happen to be "religious" or not--they seem to tend not to want to give it up. But this "might makes right" phenomenon is due to competitive striving not true spirituality.

rw: How about greater public awareness, especially in the area of mortality? How about political and spiritual acceptance and declaration of science as the key factor? How about raising the banner of science above government and religion, where it rightfully belongs? How about government and religion bowing before its master and the one that continues to make them possible?

mike: You set government and religion up as competetors of science and then you ask them to do the work of restoring science to its "rightful" place as master--yet if they are truly competetive as you say, what makes you think they will ever bow? For the failure of science to become more attractive you point the finger away from science to what you claim are lesser entities. The truth is there is no separate entity or master called Science or Religion or Government but all are multiple manifestations of ONE humanity. The question is not who will be master, but whether these aspects of humanity will continue to war with each other or whether they can someday co-exist harmoniously. You and I can work toward either one or the other of these ends--or we can just sit back and watch the fireworks.

rw: Religion presupposes might, god’s might, as the final arbiter…else no hell.

mike: The hell I described in my previous post requires no external might. It simply requires a view of what could have been contrasted with a view of what we have made of ourselves.

rw: But he can’t deny it exists and if he takes a ride in it, it’s purpose becomes immediately evident, thus its meaning becomes clear to him and does exist as an objective expression of the car.

mike: But his world is without roads, and if he does not migrate a car would serve no purpose, without purpose what meaning could it hold?

rw: Can you describe the difference between being human and being alive?

mike: I'm not sure what you are getting at here, but my dog appears to be alive...

rw: If these people volitionally choose to establish such a world how is that segregationist? They aren’t forced to, or forced not to leave or visit other worlds…so where’s the justification for this accusation?

mike: No accusation, but with such enormous energy and so many resources that would be required to find or create so many hospitable worlds I just wondered what might we do with our own? Certainly many thousands of scientists must be educated and employed, trillions of dollars spent to even begin such a venture with only uncertain possibilities. How far must we go before we find just one other world that is or can be made compatible with our own? Of infinite possible directions we don't even know which way to point our pioneering spaceships. But we know what was accomplished with just one Ghandi. What might be possible if we educated, trained and funded a few thousand? Ghandi as a political and religious man pretty much single handedly halted (albeit temporarily) an age old war between Hindus and Muslims. As his fast persisted the fighting ceased and the streets grew silent to avoid his death. He also broke Britain's hold over India using completely non-violent means.

And meanwhile we imagine that with no effort at harmonizing the tension between humanity's parts we will peacefully drift to our separate planets. What if we do destroy our earth and are forced to leave? And as separate spaceships full of Muslims and Christians and Hindus and Atheists drift off in search for another home we find but one other rather small planet that is reasonably close? Our provisions are low, we all must land or perish. We can begin where we left off on earth, or we can fight now for who gets the prime landing spots.

rw: But if you are eating all the food and leaving me none? Then I should let go of the need to exist?

mike: This is precisely the illusion that brings about war. Starvation has never yet been a result of a lack of global resources, but of a lack of cooperation. We imagine a future where we will exhaust all our resources (albeit realistically millions of years hence). But this doctrine causes us to grab and fight and discard in our trash and destroy with our waste and haste to get more for ourselves--to preserve our own lives--and perhaps if we are just selfish and wasteful enough we will create the very future we imagine.

rw: Can you elucidate on what particular wars and destruction have been waged over Darwinian science?

mike: It is the illusion of a necessary competition that fosters wars and destruction. The idea that you will eat all of the food and leave me none. Darwinian science is but one of many ways this illusion has been perpetuated--with the doctrine that the survival of particular mutations depends on competing with other mutations for limited resources. I can't think of a single war where such a belief may not lie somewhere at the root. It may be protestant vs catholic, or biology department vs. astronomy department, but competition for survival is at the root of contention and immorality, and cooperation for greater freedom for all parties is at the root of morality.

rw: revelation: Theology. A manifestation of divine will or truth

mike: God is divine, and man is divine because he comes from God. Truth existent in all forms makes revelation possible when we make room in our minds for it.

rw: Then you admit that we are subject to see what we want to see…and unless it’s confirmed by others it might not be true?

mike: I don't know why you make the leap from seeing what we see to having it necessarily confirmed by others. And seeing what we want to see may not be the same as seeing what is. If I love you, then I become a loving person in relationship to you, regardless of whether or not you love me--and if I truly love you I may acquire some of your attributes. If I hate you then I become a hateful person, at least in relationship to you, regardless of whether or not you hate me--and I will likely reject your attributes. Thus, I am fully responsible for the self I become, but still, it is in relationship to you.

rw: And what of those problems inherent in this planet that may be irresolvable? Or if finding and populating other planets resolve more problems than not doing so?

mike: Then so be it, but let's strive for balance in our search for solutions until we know for certain what we must do.

rw: Then you deny that man has almost doubled his average lifespan? If not, what is there to believe and how has that invaded the obvious?

mike: Some scientists may say that although we may double the lifespan we may create more problems for the planet by doing so. I don't necessarily buy that doctrine. I agree that doubling the lifespan would be good if the quality of that life is good. And science certainly has played a role in that. But there may be other beliefs, other doctrines within the scientific community about the efficacy of extending life as an end in itself. These two views are based on beliefs about what is best or good, and how best to balance outcomes. I was just making the point that all science is based on systems of belief whether those involve God or not.

rw: I notice you have a computer and are connected to the web. Has this improved the quality of your life? You say that you learn something from all these exchanges and so enjoy them…as do I…thus has this learning improved the quality of your life?

mike: It is debatable. My wife probably does not appreciate the time I spend here as much as I do. My wife certainly has a bigger influence on the quality of my day to day life than this computer. And if not here, I would certainly find someone to argue with through another medium. I've been provoked to learn in many settings. But while this is available I suppose I mayl enjoy it, and learn from it.

rw: My point exactly. If theistic morality is so superior, and Christians are suppose to represent its superiority, why are these divorce rates a matter of public record? Surely a superior objective morality would make for better relationships among its constituency…yes?

mike: Only if we truly subscribe to this morality. As you admitted, science in the form of technology can be used to destructive ends, but this doesn't necessarily negate the usefulness of science as a discipline. Spirituality in the form of religion can also be used to destructive ends, but this doesn't necessarily negate the usefulness of spirituality.

rw: Like…your existence on earth?

mike: If there was no existence after death, what mind would exist to regret losing my existence?

rw: How does one come to this realization?

mike: By having a mind that exists after death, by coming face to face with our Father and seeing that we have not become like him as we might have.

rw: Okay, then God is…where?

mike: Biologically speaking, in our DNA, as well as in his own body. As a personage he exists in his own sphere and/or dimension of reality. As an influence he pervades the universe. Similarly, but in a much more limited fashion, the sun exists as its own unified body, radiates as light and heat--its energy and influence pervade the planet and space--and it's elements (hydrogen, etc.) are also found throughout the earth and throughout space (analogous to DNA). To all is offered the opportunity to feel his presence if they attend to it, but we will not see him until we are "born again" any more than a baby will see its mother until it is born. Mortality on earth prior to re-birth isn't, of course, a literal womb, but a metaphorical one. God has left instructions about how to reach him all over the universe--from the metamorphis of a catapiller, to the birth of a child, to the birth of a galaxy.

rw: Then if you admit or allow this doctrine,

mike: It's not about admitting or allowing, but about recognizing what is.

rw: what prohibits this god from taking all people immediately to immortality by divine fiat? Why wait on so many to die natural deaths? If, as Paul and Jesus say, this time will be shortened, why allow this time at all? Why not just bypass the whole shebang and take everyone to heaven from their position prior to birth? It sounds like heaven is a wonderful place, far better than earth could ever hope to be, so what’s with this “womb” theology when a rapture was available all along?

mike: 1. That would eliminate the freedom so essential for our growth. 2. You already agreed that not being able to think what you want would hardly be better than not being able to think at all. 3. It may be analogous to inducing labor when an infant is yet premature. 4. Our minds are co-eternal with God and as such ultimately cannot be made to be or do anything against our will. But we can only progress according to our divine natures, or we can simply stand still (damnation) there is no going back since you cannot unmake what was never made. God made this body as an opportunity for our growth, he did not make the mind.

rw: This Armenian theology is contradicted by Calvinist claims of predestination. You’ve been vacillating back and forth between these opposing doctrines now for several pages, and I suspect it has something to do with your private interpretations of the various text.

mike: I don't know Armenian theology, but what I am advocating has nothing to do with Calvinism (Believe me I have had many discussions with Calvinists). Calvinists believe that we are created ex nihilo by the whim of God, who predestinates us for eternal pain or eternal bliss--basically for his own entertainment. Calvinism is one of the views responsible for chasing folks like you out of theology. My view is nearly opposite. In my theology "Satan" was the originator of the idea that perhaps we could be forced to obey through some type of mental slavery. He was Lucifer, a spirit of considerable intelligence and influence. He sought to preserve his place as a being of superior intellect by enslaving us to his will. Thus, blindly obedient, we would never progress further by stretching our minds through choice. God sought the opposite, to raise us to the level of equals. God insisted on the preservation of our freedom and thus our growth. Unable to persuade, or to dethrone God as the author of our progress, Lucifer sought to persuade and subsequently enslave us--attempting thereby to preserve his power through force and by a system of slavery. Hence the "war" of ideas described previously. I have consistently advocated a gospel of freedom. Being eternal we chose from the beginning to enter into a relationship with God though which we could ultimately become more like him: more intelligent, more connected to others, more free. We agreed upon the terms of this relationship from the beginning because God knew the formula for such progress and had the power to implement it. This included the necessity of freedom of choice, and the necessity of learning from "scratch" for a period of time in order to preserve freedom of choice by blocking any preconceived ideas or biases about who we were to become. Then beginning fresh in forgetfulness we were presented with competing ideas (good and evil, cooperation or competition) and allowed to choose between these free of former biases. Thus in our new relationships to others our true selves, true desires, are manifested and developed--whether competetive or cooperative.

rw: You are definitely positing a freely chosen salvation as opposed to “election” so now I have more information upon which to proceed. Why did God harden the hearts of the Pharisees so they could not recognize Jesus as the son of God? How can one see a hand that has been withdrawn?

mike: The pharisees had been hardening their own hearts their whole lives. They were looking for a gospel of oppression, a conquering Messiah. Christ came advocating cooperation (give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's). He claimed and offered divinity for all. The Pharisees made their living by remaining at the top of the food chain. Christ offered to lift all men up to the level of heirs. Reference to hardening or softening hearts is simply a reference to telling it like it is. Hearts prone to cooperation are softened by a message of cooperation, hearts prone to competition are hardened by a message of cooperation.

How can one see a hand that has been withdrawn? You first hear about where it may be found, then you reach for it. If you reach in the correct direction then you will feel it, then grasping it you will be drawn by it into the light and once again see it. If you reach and miss, then you correct your course and reach again. It's all very scientific Through this process you learn what is true and what is false, what is good and what is evil. But if the hand is not withdrawn at least temporarily, how can we choose to reach for anything else? To preserve our freedom God places us in a state where free of constraint, and empty handed, we are offered choices about what we may fill them with, though ideas presented, through observation of others, and through personal experiment, and finally by the commitment of reaching for what we want.

NonContradiction

Please point out where I claimed that every behavior is either good or bad. Also, I will ask you the following question for the third time since you still haven't answered it yet: Why must the choice be between moral neutrality and absolute morality? If I believe that SOME actions are moral, then I am not neutral. If I believe that there are exceptions to moral rules, then I don't believe in moral absolutes. Clearly, the choice isn't just between moral neutrality and absolute morality.Will you please answer this question?



Yes, that is true and I am still waiting for you to show me why it's not a false dichotomy.



Yes, that is true. If every action is either good or bad, in every logically possible circumstance, then that is absolute morality. For example, if it's wrong to kill people, assuming absolute morality, then it's wrong to kill any human being in any logically possible situation. There can be no exceptions to the rule. Most actions that I can think of, if not all, can be good or bad, depending upon the circumstances surrounding the action. I don't believe in moral neutrality and I don't believe in moral absolutes.

How am I sunk? If you would address my question that I have put to you three times now, perhaps we could then move on. I am claiming that a choice between moral neutrality and absolute morality is a false dichotomy and I have given you the reasons why I think that is so. So far, you have failed to address this question.

Wiploc

You are talking past each other. When he says absolute morality, he means that every act has moral significance. That's what he means; that's all he means. If there are any morally neutral acts, then morality is not absolute (in his meaning of absolute).

When you say absolute, you mean "with no exceptions" (like a flat tax, so to speak).

Since you are talking about different things, it is natural that you can't agree on the implications.
crc