How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 Philosophy 101
 Comparing Rand's and Religious Morality   [ Page: 1  2  3  ]
 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Comparing Rand's and Religious Morality

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


50 posted 07-10-2007 02:31 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I can recommend some books by historians who demonstrate the historical cogency of Christian belief. Perhaps you've only assumed that it is too fantastical for historical consideration.
Well, you have me there. I actually DO feel some things too fantastical for either consideration or belief. I consider a boat holding two of every species on earth, one female and one male of course to be able to propogate  the species, all living together with none dying for 40 days (even though many species, especially insects, have only a life span of several days) to be too fantastical.....and yet there are people today still looking for the ark and claim to know which mount it came to rest on. There are many such examples throughout the Bible, which resembles mythology more than anything and does not stand up against any reason or logic.How does Christianity handle this issue?.....by saying one must BELIEVE, one must have FAITH, in other words close your mind to what it tells you is irrational and just FEEL. Close your mind and open your heart..

The first Christians were a handful of fishermen who followed a man who denied (to his followers amazement) the then-contemporary Jewish view of the Messiah as a military conqueror. He emphatically refused to be made king, on more than one occasion. He warned his disciples against viewing leadership and power the way the "gentiles" did, as lording power over others. He spoke about the greatest among them being a servant
Ok, that's the religious version, completely unsubstantiated by anything outside the Bible, of course. Actually I have read one version where christianity was invented for a completely different reason. i'll try to remember where i saw that article.

So your appeal to the Crusades as a proof of the corruption of religion, is just that ... proof that something good can be corrupted. Proof that something straight can be twisted
A milestone has been reached in our conversation. We agree!!   This is exactly what Rand was referring to when she advised running from anyone who preached sacrifice to you. Religion HAS been used selfishly...but not the selfish that Rand advocates. It is the selfish that tells people to keep sending those cards and letters in, folks, with all the money you have - the selfish that tells its followers to give their lives for the sake of their religion (don't see many top terrorists carrying out those suicide bombings, do ya?) It is the selfish that takes advantage of others, not one that trades value for value, which is Rand's definition.

Man was created in the very image of God (no small epithet of honor).   Another non-fact you cannot know for certain.

Mankind (not only mankind, but every indivdual man woman and child) is considered worth God sending his own son to die for. Oh, is Jesus dead? Or you say he's not dead because God resurrected Him? So I don't understand how God sending his Son to die with the purpose of bringing him back to life is a sacrifice. When something is sacrfiiced it is GONE...but, then, I'm tossing a little logic in there.

What a chimera, then, is man! what a novelty, what a monster, what a chaos, what a subject of contradiction, what a prodigy! A judge of all things, feeble worm of the earth, depositary of the truth, cloaca of uncertainty and error, the glory and the shame of the universe" and yet you claim that God created Man in his image.

You want to demonstrate (beyond a general statement) that either Jesus, Mohammed, or Buddha were mere only concotions of the religions that created them? You can start with Jesus if you wish
Nope. You want to offer proof that Jesus was not? (not counting the 'because the Bible tells me so' standard answer) You can't anymore than I can....they are ours views, nothing more.

Actually I never said that "one cannot know". My apologies. No, you didn't but I certainly heard it enough from my parents and the preacher in the town where i grew up. You will also hear it everywhere Christianity is questioned. "It is not for us to know", "God works in mysterious ways", "You must believe", "You must have faith", "You must accept without question".....all these and more are standard replies to whoever would dare ask for reasonable explanations to the mysteries of religion.

And hey, I have to point out that if you think we're not going to just die and rot, you're already on your way to having a definite religious article of belief.
I acknowledged that. I simply have not found the theism that I can accept. If I live my entire life without finding it, it doesn't matter to me. I can only live my life the best way I can while respecting the rights of others and, if some reward exists, hopefully I will have earned it. Maybe I can get a cot near Ghandi, who will also be banned from the Christian heaven for not having accepted Jesus Christ as his savior.


Upon what are you basing your personal opinion of her theism?
Her same tools...reason and logic. To have no belief in anything would negate any desire to live one's life with purpose or in a moral way. To be so passionate in her beliefs indicates to me that there WAS a belief, or at least a hope, in something beyond the grave. I think she acknowledged that it was something which would be revealed - or not- only by her death so she did not waste any time dwelling on it while alive.In Atlas Shrugged, Dagny was asked that, if there were an afterlife and she was met there by her peers, what would she want them to say? Her response was "Well done!" I believe that echoes Ayn Rand's thoughts as well and indicated a yearn for such a possibility instead of a complete dismissal of it.

Don't let the cats get you down...I have eight!

Drauntz
Member Elite
since 03-16-2007
Posts 2907
Los Angeles California


51 posted 07-10-2007 06:37 PM       View Profile for Drauntz   Email Drauntz   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Drauntz

My Dear Sir Balladeer,

“There are many such examples throughout the Bible, which resembles mythology more than anything and does not stand up against any reason or logic. How does Christianity handle this issue?.....by saying one must BELIEVE, one must have FAITH, in other words close your mind to what it tells you is irrational and just FEEL. Close your mind and open your heart..”

…...it is handled as "it is what it is". Nobody reasons why there  is only one moon at night and most of the time not  fully lighted at all and why there is only one sun. Why human has one head when we know that two heads are better than one. The earth was once believed a flat and was the center of the universe. Now, the truth comes out from science that earth runs around the Sun. The world exists not because that there is a Bible. The world exists before the Bible was written. In a word, you may believe anything, but there is a truth. But you will ask If the truth is in the Bible? Until it is proved false in any way.  If the Bible later was found not telling the truth, still there is a truth out there.


”Ok, that's the religious version, completely unsubstantiated by anything outside the Bible, of course. Actually I have read one version where christianity was invented for a completely different reason. i'll try to remember where i saw that article.”

…all a touch of  the Spirit.

“This is exactly what Rand was referring to when she advised running from anyone who preached sacrifice to you. Religion HAS been used selfishly...but not the selfish that Rand advocates. It is the selfish that tells people to keep sending those cards and letters in, folks, with all the money you have - the selfish that tells its followers to give their lives for the sake of their religion (don't see many top terrorists carrying out those suicide bombings, do ya?) It is the selfish that takes advantage of others, not one that trades value for value, which is Rand's definition.”

….......There is not really such thing as sacrifice. We can’t  give out what we  don’t have.  But how we spend what we have? Based on personal values. If Rand thought that she should respect others why bother their belief?   As you think that church is an organization, then she should preach that no donation to all including firefighter and police organization and also charity.  

”Man was created in the very image of God (no small epithet of honor).   Another non-fact you cannot know for certain.”

……it is taken as whatever it is.

”Oh, is Jesus dead? Or you say he's not dead because God resurrected Him? So I don't understand how God sending his Son to die with the purpose of bringing him back to life is a sacrifice. When something is sacrfiiced it is GONE...but, then, I'm tossing a little logic in there.”

…....…very interesting thought. Jesus was dead and deadly dead  physically.  His body was not found after day three. Why?  Also when he came to life, nobody recognized him. Why?   The resurrected is a new body to tell that the soul with a new body is the future road that all have to go through. The only question is that if the new body shall go in heaven or in hell.

”What a chimera, then, is man! what a novelty, what a monster, what a chaos, what a subject of contradiction, what a prodigy! A judge of all things, feeble worm of the earth, depositary of the truth, cloaca of uncertainty and error, the glory and the shame of the universe" and yet you claim that God created Man in his image.”

…....very interesting again.  why desires, why dictatorship, name them, you can find those characters in God…. the creator, the source of love and righteous. The difference is that we are the product of God. What do you call “water changes to wine”?  I might just call it a lie because if God can do anything , why need water to make wine? The Widow’s oil bottle was even better, right? (2 Kings 4:1-7)

”You want to demonstrate (beyond a general statement) that either Jesus, Mohammed, or Buddha were mere only concotions of the religions that created them? You can start with Jesus if you wish
Nope. You want to offer proof that Jesus was not? (not counting the 'because the Bible tells me so' standard answer) You can't anymore than I can....they are ours views, nothing more.”

… all in written words.

”Actually I never said that "one cannot know". My apologies. No, you didn't but I certainly heard it enough from my parents and the preacher in the town where i grew up. You will also hear it everywhere Christianity is questioned. "It is not for us to know", "God works in mysterious ways", "You must believe", "You must have faith", "You must accept without question".....all these and more are standard replies to whoever would dare ask for reasonable explanations to the mysteries of religion.”

…....There are many human teachings but we are genetically coded the ability of thinking and judging ..a gift from God to search truth.

”And hey, I have to point out that if you think we're not going to just die and rot, you're already on your way to having a definite religious article of belief.
I acknowledged that. I simply have not found the theism that I can accept. If I live my entire life without finding it, it doesn't matter to me. I can only live my life the best way I can while respecting the rights of others and, if some reward exists, hopefully I will have earned it. Maybe I can get a cot near Ghandi, who will also be banned from the Christian heaven for not having accepted Jesus Christ as his savior. “

....….so I credit a very good man of you to your great parents’ love and teaching.

After life or not, the first thing of any religions dealing with is the current life. To live in reality(human nature and nature), one has to have wisdom to live happily…...no matter how it is defined. This reality is not in Rand “philosophy”.

have to get some coffee. It is not easy for me to write this much.
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


52 posted 07-10-2007 06:53 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Let's see. How many people can I upset today.


quote:
....You do not want to get into trouble again and again, sir. I have dozen of Korean Lady friends.
next time I will talk Pip with them. If they read your words. they'll eat you alive no matter how demure they look. They all have strong characters, as you know. Some do complain about their husband as either sleeping in front of TV with remote in hand or being caught in internet the remote fantasy land . no time at all for children and other family members.

the right thing is that I shall see less of you here.


As our Dear Leader once said, "Bring it on!"

Drauntz
Member Elite
since 03-16-2007
Posts 2907
Los Angeles California


53 posted 07-10-2007 07:42 PM       View Profile for Drauntz   Email Drauntz   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Drauntz

Sir Brad,
I SAID that I shall see less of you here!!!!!
read a story to your lovely daughter.
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


54 posted 07-10-2007 08:08 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

I thought it was your turn.
Drauntz
Member Elite
since 03-16-2007
Posts 2907
Los Angeles California


55 posted 07-10-2007 09:53 PM       View Profile for Drauntz   Email Drauntz   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Drauntz

"The thought of a great poet is sort of dream." --Drauntz
oceanvu2
Senior Member
since 02-24-2007
Posts 1007
Santa Monica, California, USA


56 posted 07-11-2007 12:25 AM       View Profile for oceanvu2   Email oceanvu2   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for oceanvu2

This reminds me of another old proverb I just made up.  It has to do with the difference between philosophers and dogs.  "If you throw a bone to a philosopher and you throw a bone to a dog, eventually the dog will get down to the marrow.

But then, tomarrow is another day.  Nytol.

Jim
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


57 posted 07-12-2007 12:53 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Balladeer:
quote:
There are many such examples throughout the Bible, which resembles mythology more than anything and does not stand up against any reason or logic.How does Christianity handle this issue?.....by saying one must BELIEVE, one must have FAITH, in other words close your mind to what it tells you is irrational and just FEEL. Close your mind and open your heart..


Well, if you are referring to miracles, then there's no a priori reason to think them impossible, or contrary to reason.  For by definition miracles are exceptional.  There are some who feel the difficulties (particularly of certain Old Testament passages) can be explained in terms of didactic parables.  Some feel that the Noah story can be explained in such a way.  I actually think that Job may be such a story (though I don't doubt that there was such a man).  C.S. Lewis (a philologist who was also a Christian) once said that the writing style of the story of Jonah was that of mythic parable.  I'm not sure I'm ready to admit the necessity of giving up the strict historicity of Noah, Job, or Jonah. But I don't think the faith would crumble if these were parabolic in nature.  The question would be, of course, where to draw the line.  If you rule out everything because it is miraculous, then you've predetermined rather than discovered history.  When you get over into the New Testament, especially in the gospels (which Lewis definitely called narrative reportage, a type of literature much different than myth), you run into a history that is much harder to mythologize.  If you insist on doing so at this point, you simply paint a picture that is much harder to believe than what is said in the texts.  At least it runs you into the business of historical reconstruction where the solution is more fantastic than the problem seems to be.


If I could at least suggest this to you ...  Due to the historical nature of the Christian faith, it has never been necessary to just say "Believe by turning your brain off", or "Just accept what is obviously implausible".  I think you'd be surprised how persuasive the history is, if you actually researched it for yourself.  Of course historical analysis can only take you so far.  Faith is necessary to believe the gospel.  But it isn't so much a matter of believing the incredible versus the rational ... as it is believing the incredible versus the more incredible.  As much as you yourself see the natural order screaming intelligent design, there are those willing to rather believe it happened by chance ... something which I don't have enough "faith" for.


I was serious about the suggested reading, if you're ever interested, particularly works surrounding the life, death and ressurrection of Christ.  I think it might be worth your time.  


quote:
Ok, that's the religious version, completely unsubstantiated by anything outside the Bible, of course. Actually I have read one version where christianity was invented for a completely different reason. i'll try to remember where i saw that article.


The Bible actually contains several documents written about the life of Jesus.  These documents are the earliest attestable documents (and represents the best manuscript attestation of any ancient literature, in number and proximity to events, bar none).  Other conflicting documents about Jesus (pseudapigraphal) are shown to be few in manuscript attestation, of false claims of authorship, and much later on the time line.  Those documents are simply the closest to the actual events.  Therefore I don't see why you should want to rule out the New Testament as source material for the life of Jesus.


quote:
Stephen: So your appeal to the Crusades as a proof of the corruption of religion, is just that ... proof that something good can be corrupted. Proof that something straight can be twisted

Balladeer:A milestone has been reached in our conversation. We agree!!


So you also agree that the Crusades could represent a deviation from the original religion of Jesus, as recorded in the gospels?  My point was that poor deviations and innovations cannot reasonably be used to discredit originals ... though I also recognize that it is human nature to do so.  


quote:
Stephen:  Man was created in the very image of God (no small epithet of honor).  

Balladeer: Another non-fact you cannot know for certain.



In the context of our discussion, you were saying (along with Rand) that Christianity is somewhat misanthropic.  I was showing you, on Christianity's own terms (ie, Imago Dei, and the Passion), that it is not.  Proving what Christianity asserts, at this point, is irrelevant to the conversation.  I supposed you were making a statement about Christianity according to its own data, not a misrepresention of it.


I will point out however, since you brought it up, that being made in the image of God is at least more in line with your view that mankind should be respected and honored, than any other view I can think of.  Naturalistic Darwinism fails at this point for sure, and provides no reason for honor.


quote:
Stephen: Mankind (not only mankind, but every indivdual man woman and child) is considered worth God sending his own son to die for.

Balladeer: Oh, is Jesus dead? Or you say he's not dead because God resurrected Him? So I don't understand how God sending his Son to die with the purpose of bringing him back to life is a sacrifice. When something is sacrfiiced it is GONE...but, then, I'm tossing a little logic in there.



Actually that's Rands peculiar definition of sacrifice.  Sacrifice in proper context is not without a return.  Whether you believe that "what comes around goes around", or the law of "sowing and reaping", or "Karma", the principle is the same.  Your statement is therefore only logical if sacrifice means lost forever.  The etymology of the word actually means to "make holy", not to "throw away".  Remember that logic requires the proper information.


I think you've made another mistake in assuming that Jesus' death (and particularly the unsavory task of 'becoming sin' for the world) could mean little or nothing simply because his life was regained.  If you gave your life to rescue someone would it mean nothing??  You already said you don't believe you'll just rot in the ground.  Hey, I'm just using logic here.         


quote:
Blaise Pascal: What a chimera, then, is man! what a novelty, what a monster, what a chaos, what a subject of contradiction, what a prodigy! A judge of all things, feeble worm of the earth, depositary of the truth, cloaca of uncertainty and error, the glory and the shame of the universe

balladeer: and yet you claim that God created Man in his image.


I certainly did.  Didn't I already explain how the highest fall the lowest?  If a god-like creature were to fall, turn the wrong way, and become corrupt, it would be probably be bad right?  An image is still an image, not the original.  And an image with a will of its own, comes with a certain risk.  None of that is incongruent with God creating us in his image, nor restoring us again to glory.


quote:
Nope. You want to offer proof that Jesus was not? (not counting the 'because the Bible tells me so' standard answer) You can't anymore than I can....they are ours views, nothing more.


Why are the documents of the New Testament ruled out as invalid, a priori?  They are indeed more than "just our views".  I'll be glad to look at the tracks if you want, but not if you've (contrary to logic) ruled out the Bible as source data ahead of time.  You certainly must have some substantial reason to think that Jesus was simply "made up" by a group of people.


quote:
Stephen: Actually I never said that "one cannot know".  

Balladeer: My apologies. No, you didn't but I certainly heard it enough from my parents and the preacher in the town where i grew up. You will also hear it everywhere Christianity is questioned. "It is not for us to know", "God works in mysterious ways", "You must believe", "You must have faith", "You must accept without question".....all these and more are standard replies to whoever would dare ask for reasonable explanations to the mysteries of religion.


I accept your apology.  

Seriously, there is sometimes an anti-intellectualism in the Church which relegates everything to a kind of pseudo-faith, and denies the importance of the mind.  Personally I call it having faith in faith.  But not all Christian answers are so threadbare.  You should listen to the radio archives of Ravi Zacharias some times.  I think he's one of the greatest Christian apologists (in word and deed) of our time.  Here's the website if you're interested in listening:

http://www.rzim.org/


But I have to give the preachers and teachers you mentioned the benefit of the doubt.  Yes, statements like "you just have to have faith" are made, because they are true.  Human knowledge is insufficient to lead us to certainty in any area.  In science, it is expressed a bit differently, by saying "We'll know one day".  But even though one is a faith God-ward and the other Man-ward, it is the same kind of answer.  God has given us much of what may be called evidence.  But the thing about question marks (especially if they are rhetorical) are that they can repeat themselves ad nauseam.  Pascal also wrote that "There is sufficient light for those who desire to see, and there is sufficient darkness for those of a contrary disposition." (Pensees 149).  That's not an insult to you or anyone else, it is simply a human truth.  I think you have a desire to see or you wouldn't even see what you do, namely that there is a God.  But I just feel that it is necessary to point out that all so-called evidence has boundaries, and not only for religion.  You're in a philosophy forum, so I think its appropriate for me to mention that its been no small task in Western Philosophy even to believe in one's own existence.  It just goes to show you ...  Anything can be doubted, but that doesn't necessarily make it doubtful.


quote:
Maybe I can get a cot near Ghandi, who will also be banned from the Christian heaven for not having accepted Jesus Christ as his savior.


If that's the case, then I wouldn't want a cot next to him.  

quote:
Stephen: Upon what are you basing your personal opinion of her theism?

Balladeer: Her same tools...reason and logic.


We're both using reason and logic, btw.  The question, as always, is who is using it properly.      


I'm not saying you're wrong here.  But didn't she say that she was an atheist?  


Later,


Stephen.            
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


58 posted 07-12-2007 01:20 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Brad,

I have to correct you... There's an enigmatic nature to all women regardless of nationality or ethnicity.  (ducking here).  


Here's a joke (please take this good-naturedly)




A man is walking along the beach, and sees a glint of gold flash in the sand.  Upon exploration he finds that it is an Aladdin's lamp.  He rubs it several times, and POOF out comes a Genie who seems very impatient.


"Look here.  I'm really in hurry.  I've got the once-a-millenium gathering of the Genies to attend tonight.  I can only grant you one wish"


"Uh ... okay.  I've always wanted to go to Hawaii.  But I'm scared to fly, and I get deathly sea-sick on a boat.  Could you build me a bridge to Hawaii?"


"That's going to take thousands of tons of steel, concrete, and the human labor would be unthinkable.  There would have to be restaurants, gas-stations, and stations for emergency medical help and auto-repair.  There would have to be cell phone toweres, and on and on ... Nope.  I can't do that.  Too big a request.  Wish for something else."


"hmmmm.  Okay.  Well, the only other thing I can think of, is that I would really like to understand women."  


(uncomfortable pause)

"Will that be a six lane or an eight lane bridge"?





Stephen.
Drauntz
Member Elite
since 03-16-2007
Posts 2907
Los Angeles California


59 posted 07-12-2007 01:10 PM       View Profile for Drauntz   Email Drauntz   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Drauntz



Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


60 posted 07-12-2007 02:06 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

The etymology of the word actually means to "make holy", not to "throw away".
Wow! You,the accuser of Ayn Rand for manipulation of language to make a philosophical point, would offer THIS? You have just made Ayn Rand look like a rank amateur. Very well, then, let's assume that it stands for make holy. Who, or what, was made holy when God sacrificed His only Son? It wasn't God....he's GOD! It wasn't Jesus. He's the SON of God...you don't get much holier than that. It wasn't us...the church will readily point out that we are not holy...we are humans with human frailties and weaknesses. Who then was made holy by this action, according to you etymological definition?
As far as the first of your initial questions is concerned regarding this thread 1) How far is too far, in making language say what you want it to say? Can there be a kind of deception involved? , I would submit that, by your above- stated quote you have answered it...in spades.

I shall now go and ponder on all the ways I would like to make my ex-mother-in-law holy

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


61 posted 07-12-2007 05:54 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
Stephen: The etymology of the word actually means to "make holy", not to "throw away".

Balladeer: Wow! You,the accuser of Ayn Rand for manipulation of language to make a philosophical point, would offer THIS?


You might have a point if I used the etymology to suggest something far afield from common usage of the word.  But more than one of the dictionary definitions include the idea of giving up one thing, for something greater ..."the surrender or destruction of something prized or desirable for the sake of something considered as having a higher or more pressing claim."  and ... "to surrender or give up, or permit injury or disadvantage to, for the sake of something else.".  Another definition of course included the idea of holiness by mentioning deity in connection with sacrifice.  "the offering of animal, plant, or human life or of some material possession to a deity, as in propitiation or homage".  So really, how is this twisting language?  


If the idea is to give up something, for something higher, then I see nothing in the life of Christ that would render what he did non-sacrificial.  Resurrection would not make the pain and agony (and love) of such a sacrifice meaniningless.


I asked you once, and I'll ask again.  Since you believe that you will live beyond death, do you therefore think that giving your life to rescue someone else (perhaps like many did during the Twin Tower calamity) would somehow be meaningless because you didn't lose your life permanently?


Also the fact that God is holy, is no logical objection to viewing his sacrifice as holy ... actually it is pretty much the explanation.  The Son of God is holy also, but not apart from his self-sacrifice.  As the Son of Man, his human holiness depended upon his willful submission to the will of the Father, which (thankfully) included Calvary.


Stephen          
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


62 posted 07-13-2007 09:30 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I asked you once, and I'll ask again. Since you believe that you will live beyond death, do you therefore think that giving your life to rescue someone else (perhaps like many did during the Twin Tower calamity) would somehow be meaningless because you didn't lose your life permanently?
Stephanos, I never claimed that I believe I will live beyound death. I said that I believe there must be SOMETHING after death. No, I have no idea what it is. Perhaps it is a constant exchange of souls, souls of people dying being reconditioned and occupying newborns. Perhaps the kind of life we lead determines what our next life will be like...and perhaps the entity that orchestrates this is the "God" we all hope exists. There are other theories, also. What I said was basically that, if everything ends with the grave, then life would appear to be little more than a bad joke. What I also said was that there is no way to know for a fact while we are still here on earth so I'm not going to waste my time  worrying about it. It is what it is.
The firefighter chiefs did not send the firefighters into the twin towers as a sacrifice and no firefighter went in believing he was sacrificing his life. They went in to rescue people and come out alive.
do you therefore think that giving your life to rescue someone else (perhaps like many did during the Twin Tower calamity) would somehow be meaningless because you didn't lose your life permanently?
I have no idea in the world what that means. How does one lose one's life non-permanently? Your comparison of this with God sacrificing Jesus holds no validity that I can see.

I could press you to answer my question about who or what was made holy by the sacrifice of Jesus, but you could come back with something else and then so would I and we could ping-pong through another couple of pages of Ron's bandwith but I think you said it best a couple of replies ago....Proving what Christianity asserts, at this point, is irrelevant to the conversation.

I agree...peace.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


63 posted 07-13-2007 10:02 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Balladeer:
quote:
The firefighter chiefs did not send the firefighters into the twin towers as a sacrifice and no firefighter went in believing he was sacrificing his life.


Yeah, like no soldier ever thinks he might be going in a skirmish to lose his life.  Life is to be hoped for and desired, but in certain pre-decided courses of action exists the willful knowledge that death may come ... hence the idea of sacrifice is still present.

quote:
  I have no idea in the world what that means. How does one lose one's life non-permanently? Your comparison of this with God sacrificing Jesus holds no validity that I can see.


If one conceives that one may live again, past death, then it's easy to understand how one could lose one's life non-permanently.  Death is still death, regardless of what happens after.

quote:
I could press you to answer my question about who or what was made holy by the sacrifice of Jesus


Actually I failed to mention earlier that it is believers who are made holy by the sacrifice of Christ.  What you said about the Church claiming that "we are not holy" is true in the sense that we have no righteousness in and of ourselves, apart from God.  Christian teaching has always asserted that sinners may be made holy, by someone's else's merit.  I failed to mention that earlier and wanted to clarify, since you seemed to suggest that Church "will readily point out" that no one can be holy other than God.  But that has never been the teaching of the Church at anytime.


And, BTW, it's been an interesting and lively discussion with you Mike.  Peace to you as well.  May our discussions resume at some later point in time.


Stephen.      
Drauntz
Member Elite
since 03-16-2007
Posts 2907
Los Angeles California


64 posted 07-16-2007 01:22 PM       View Profile for Drauntz   Email Drauntz   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Drauntz

why does human need morality?

Does animal have morality?
if yes, who taught them?
If no, they all survive well unless human over-eating them.

If animal doesn't have morality to survive well, why does human need it?

Sir Brad?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


65 posted 07-16-2007 02:01 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Stephen....my thoughts as well. You have style and class and, whether we agree or not, you present your thoughts well.

Peace
Drauntz
Member Elite
since 03-16-2007
Posts 2907
Los Angeles California


66 posted 07-16-2007 04:53 PM       View Profile for Drauntz   Email Drauntz   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Drauntz

My dearest sir Balladeer, the one scarier than thick-necked German named Bruno,

"who or what was made holy by the sacrifice of Jesus"

Holy...exalted or worthy of complete devotion as one perfect in goodness and righteousness http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

Who is made holy
by the coins thrown into a stream?
who is made holy
by kissing an old willow tree?
who is made holy
by pray to Myca 5 time a day?
who is made holy
by sacrificing a male sheep?
Who is made holy
by own a piece of bony ash?
Who is made holy
by being quiet in Ron's dream?

the believers!
But whom one chooses to believe is a personal choice.

Jesus, dead or live, is nobody to many people. God Himself is nobody to many people. is it true that A cow, a imagined figure, a mountain, a tree or money is very holy to  worship?    

Read after your golfing.


 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> Philosophy 101 >> Comparing Rand's and Religious Morality   [ Page: 1  2  3  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors