Hedwig

*stepping out of lurk mode* That was right out of the park, NPH. <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

TollHouse

BTW Vork, I thought your post was exceptional. With your permission I'd love to use those words next time some dipshit tells me I have no right feeling sorrow over dead kids.

I'll give you full credit, of course.

Hedwig

Thank you to all who posted truly great posts regarding morality on this thread. It was a real learning experience just lurking and reading so thank you for the education.

Not Prince Hamlet

Thank you, Hedwig.

Jeff

Panta Pei

Epilogue ~~

An Ode to the Abandoned Mind:

"So nothing "bad" ever happens? Then if you lived in such a perfect world, never having any contact with "bad", how could you know what "good" or "bad" is? Aren't you saying that a "good" god wouldn't allow something "bad" to happen? This is not a valid judgement of God based upon your own criteria. Your judgement of God is actually self refuting."

Media-1

The described idea of Heaven(tm) must then surely repulse Media-1.

In the beginning, according to one particular fable, all was 'good' and humanity seemed content.

Eve brought us the wisdom of good and bad, so it is told.

Therefore, we should give thanks to Eve for our ability to maintain morality which, it appears, YHWH intended to punish us with.

Let us know when you stop chasing your own tail with such dim, circuitous ramblings, Media-1.

You may feel a little dizzy and nauseated when you do but, given time, your eyes will focus and you will find clarity.

rebelnerd

I would like to thank all of you for your input and comments. Vork's comments were dead-on.

I started this post because the fact that someone would leave her kids in a hot car to go to a beauty salon really hit a raw nerve with me. What really pissed me off was that her vanity seemed more important to her than the welfare of her children. Two children died for a hairdo. What a waste.

Once again, thank you.


Filo

Edited to change "woman" to "someone," I don't want to get in trouble over that.

[ June 30, 2002: Message edited by: Filo Quiggens ]

[ June 30, 2002: Message edited by: Filo Quiggens ]</p>

Illithid

Well color me flattered. Wow, this bugger exploded, didn't it?

Oh, and just in case he's reading still, why is the woman's action immoral, and why does it anger me?

It is immoral because it violates a moral value of our culture, which states that adults are supposed to protect and nurture children, not let them die of neglect. It angers me because I was taught by my parents and others that this is a duty that both I and this woman must fulfill. It angers me that I was not in a position to protect these kids (only a little, because obviously I had no opportunity to do so), but mostly because this woman is a member of my culture who has failed in an important moral duty.

For the violation of moral values to provoke anger, BTW, is socially and historically a useful and pro-survival trait. It keeps members of the group from violating the moral values of the group. It is a reaction which I have observed in adults in my formative years, and which I therefore share. However, since I think rationally about my morality, I am able to alter my ideas of what is and is not moral to fit the reality of the world as I observe it, something which an adherent of an inherited, dogmatic moral system is less able to do.

Christopher Lord

Just to add to the wonderful posts so far, I think that cooking kids in this manner is wrong because it is just plain stupid and senseless.

She was simply not thinking while closing that door to the black (!) minivan with the kids in there.

This is compounded by the fact that this was the mother acting in this manner. We know how brooding mothers can be at the best of times, and so are simply stupified by things like this.

And finally, the rights of a person only begin where another's ends. This means that, in locking her kids in the black (!) van on a summer day, she was trodding on her kids rights in a very real way. This provides YET ANOTHER secular vector for morals.

Sad to see that NO clear reason has been given for being angry at this situation from the theist perspective. As has been said, this may even be a pure act of god for the greater good, and so by definition can not be evil.

This sort of absolute morals is like sailing across the ocean by pointing east and fixing the rudder in the hopes the boat will arrive at the other side. The rudder is fixed to one direction, so OBVIOUSLY it will stay the course to the destination?

well, that doesnt take into account the frothing and dynamic nature of human existance, and will only bring us into the part of the map labeled 'Der Be Dragons'. this is EXACTLY how Witch trials, 9-11, Crusades, and Jihaad happen. Der Be Dragons.

Vorkosigan

Thanks for all the kind words. Yes, steal my post and use whenever possible. No need to credit, I must have been channeling the IPU direct.

Media-1 asked us to review Romans 6, the whole chapter. Here it is from the NIV.


Romans 6
Dead to Sin, Alive in Christ

1What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?

Notice how Paul starts out here, with death imagery. The important thing about Jesus is not his moral program -- which was the subject of the thread -- but his death. Christ-inanity began with a death obsession. It's not suprising it has given us 20 centuries of killing.

4We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

So far not a moral thought in this.

5If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. 6For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with,[1] that we should no longer be slaves to sin-- 7because anyone who has died has been freed from sin.

At least the last line is true. Death frees one from most things. But still, nothing on the moral front. The passage is really concerned with, of course, re-assuring the faithful that they will live forever. The reason Christians do well is cuz they want to live forever. Atheists do good cuz good is good to do. Readers may judge for themselves who has the superior moral position.

8Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. 10The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.

Paul is following the tried and true formula: when in doubt, repeat. Nothing moral here.

11In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. 12Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires.

Paul is clear -- the desires of the body are evil (poor guy, clearly a frustrated homosexual). Christianity is about self-control, not in the positive sense of discipline for mastery, like a fine athlete honing her body for great feats, but like a zookeeper penning in the animals. Paul's view of the Body is essentially distorted and sick. No wonder Christian morality is so hopelessly inhuman.

13Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness. 14For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace.

Paul here is referring to his claim that Christ-inanity has freed Xtians of obediance to Jewish law -- which was respected throughout antiquity for its strict moral view. Paul's main moral concern is sex; I doubt he'd scruple at leaving two kids to fry in a car, especially if it could get you into heaven.

15What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! 16Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey--whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. 18You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.

Yeesh. What a disgusting metaphor. Is there any clearer illustration that Christinanity is about domination and control?

19I put this in human terms because you are weak in your natural selves. Just as you used to offer the parts of your body in slavery to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer them in slavery to righteousness leading to holiness.

When in doubt, repeat.

20When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness.

Note how Paul conceives of righteousness, using that very word, "control."

21What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! 22But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. 23For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in[2] Christ Jesus our Lord.

...and if you believe that, Paul has bridge across the Tiber to sell ya...

And not a damn thing about morals in here.

Vorkosigan

Katey

What I find striking about this is two things. First is that the father(s?) of these kids was not even mentioned. Was she a single mother? Was she stressed out? If she wasn't...why did this happen. Heaven forbid something get reported without some "this-person-is-evil-because" slant to it. People, male or female, under a great deal of stress can do some of the most bizarre things imaginable. This doesn't surprise me. Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not pro-asphyxiation of children (which someone here is undoubtedly going to jump on me and say), but I think women are getting the shaft in a big way in this country and its starting to take its toll.

The second striking thing is that it originated right next to a thread where a bunch of men were howling about women's weight. As a matter of fact, the fat references were flying everywhere, all that was mentioned was how their wives looked and how unsatisfactory it was for them. No one mentioned once anything about character or intelligence, hell no...that's not important...or is it? Now...here's this thread talking about a woman who cares too much about how she looks.

Hmmmm.

I suppose that if I want to slap a little moral significance into this post to go with the theme, I would have to say that men need to look to themselves for the cause of a womans shallow nature. Women need to stop trying to please men, period (oh...I'm gonna catch it for that one). And the chances of any this actually taking place are very, very bad.