»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Comparing Rand's and Religious Morality
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Comparing Rand's and Religious Morality |
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA 
|
Hi everybody. Hope you're not tired of talking about Ayn Rand yet. Had some more to add if you're game. I came across an Ayn Rand quote which was quite interesting to me. The conflating of "selfishness" and "self-interest", is evident in the quote itself, especially in what it omits. Ayn writes: "The meaning ascribed in popular usage to the word 'selfishness' is not merely wrong; it represents a devastating intellectual 'package-deal' which is responsible, more than any other single factor, for the arrested moral development of mankind. In popular usage, the word 'selfishness' is a synonym of evil: the image it conjures is a murderous brute who tramples over piles of corpses to achieve his own end, who cares for no living being and pursues nothing but the gratification of the mindless whims of any immediate moment. Yet the exact meaning and dictionary definition of the word 'selfishness' is concern with one’s own interests. This concept does not include a moral evaluation; it does not tell us whether concern with one’s own interests is good or evil, nor does it tell us what constitutes man’s actual interests." (From The Virtue of Selfishness) Of particular note is where she cites a dictionary definition of "selfishness". I don't believe in a slavish compliance with the dictionary. But, since Ayn brings it up, I will note that she only gives us a part of the definition. And someone as intelligent as her, can't have overlooked the important references to excess, which is central to the way we use the word. The definition actually runs thus: selfish: adj. 1. devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others. 2. characterized by or manifesting concern or care only for oneself: selfish motives. selfishness: n. stinginess resulting from a concern for your own welfare and a disregard of others. Whatever you might think about this, it is plain enough to see that there is some manipulation going on here with language, for the purpose of making a philosophical point. Or did she really think that selfish meant "self-interest"? Or did she really think that Christianity looks down upon self interest? Whether or not her philosophical points are valid, it is not valid to claim that the traditional religious form of "morals" disapproved of a healthy degree of self-interest. Again, Jesus presupposed this when he urged people to love their neighbors as themselves. Paul presupposed this when he wrote to the Church at Philippi "Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.". (Phillipians 2:4) The traditional moral safeguard came in the form of guarding against excess, or self absorption ... a question of amount rather than kind, or the perversion of an essentially good thing, as in the difference between eating and gorging. But Rand, having already demolished the credibility of traditional morals, attempted to redraw the erased line with humanistic reason. Of course, the problem is that reason has now become diminished and truncated. The mind is forbidden to calculate with the moral data that it has had for centuries. It seems Rand was trying to correct what didn't need correcting. For though authoritative obedience is spoken of, the Biblical view of morals is not without the acknowlegement of reason. In its context reason simply has always been free to take into account other important data, such as divine authority and the the world to come. It has also been free to recognize the disconcerting truth that rewards and punishment, sowing and reaping, Karma, or whatever you want to call it, doesn't always come out as expected in this present life. That's when the good old fashioned moral preaching (even if that preaching is in your own head) fills the gap that egoism cannot. For there will always be times (and more than most admit) when behaving badly seems to turn out pretty good. There will always be times when we are tempted to play against the odds, even if we think that reason predicts a probable unpleasant outcome. I'm now reading "Atlas Shrugged" and reading further articles about Ayn Rand. I'm not claiming that I know a lot. But my first impression is that her view of Biblical morality is more based upon caricatures of it, than upon what it really states. Also I feel that her attempt at liberation of healthy self-interest is right, though she need not reject religion in order to secure it. And it seems that she unduly limits reason, by forbidding certain categories for it operate in, and making it, as it were, autonomous? What if reason was meant to be cooperational with something more, in order to remain viable? I guess the three questions posed by this thread are thus? 1) How far is too far, in making language say what you want it to say? Can there be a kind of deception involved? 2) Is the claim that Biblical morality is self deprecating, sustainable? 3) Is the forbidding of considerations of moral authority or other religious ideas, crippling and unduly limiting to human reason? BTW, lest anyone feel that I am picking on Ayn Rand, these ideas are certainly not limited to her writings. I would rather discuss the ideas, regardless of their authorship. Stephen |
||
| © Copyright 2007 Stephen Douglas Jones - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Dear Stephen, is it possible that you’re giving Rand more credit than she really deserves with this: quote: I mean, I think her ideas had/have some impact on many people and they are provocative, but the above is a bit emblazoned with charismatic power words. She’s just Rand, not Cleopatra. quote: I don’t know of anything written or spoken, in any language that would not suffer a conveyor & the perspective of another if communicated. Even a snort or a grunt can be used & misconstrued. So I’m not sure why the word selfish is preempting such a bid from you. I can think of much larger fancier words and systems that are absolutely in effect. Like the Patriot Act. And you know that religion is notoriously charged for such. quote: I think I understand your point being: “Biblical view of morals is not without the acknowledgment of reason.” So why should she reject “religious traditional morals,”? The quick explanation might be that she was an unfair hussy, but I just didn’t see that in her. I’m confused because certain moral codes existed pre-Christianity and doesn’t religion reject her as an Atheist? quote: Well again, I think that depends on perception. Maybe some people need to believe they are less than others in order to feel humble before God: A lowly servant, unworthy of anything and grateful for everything. I can appreciate that, so maybe it’s not as depreciating in the eyes of others, but if they’re doing so just to gain favor? Hmm. I think many Evangelical Preachers depend on the depreciating values of human existence, so that followers remain faithfully repentant and present within the congregation. What’s wrong with that? For me: I firmly believe that God didn’t take the time to create a Nobody. (Yes, Ess, that’s a dn with a pm  I know I’m a very flawed somebody like everybody else.quote: I think it stands to reason that she at least had gut feeling. She seemed awfully prepared for attack. Hmmm…it sounds like you're suggesting the handshaking method. That’s cool. I’d love to see some real handshaking between the selfish and the self-righteous. “I could really love you if you were more like me.” Who said that? 3) Is the forbidding of considerations of moral authority or other religious ideas, crippling and unduly limiting to human reason Moral authority rests with religion? see, that’s where I step off. I’m gonna go out and see if I can’t scare up some big boomers for the girls. It’s almost Independence Day!!! May you and yours have a safe and sparkling 4th. Sincerely, reg |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Too far is when the roots and etymology don't support the usage. |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi friendly Pipsters! I really don't know what is with all the Ayn Rand stuff. Atlas Shrugged was published 50 years ago. The paramaters of the discussion haven't changed in 49.5 years. Those who disagree with her thought set her up as a Straw-Woman and attack her Judeo-Christian apostasy with a vengance. Those who agree with her thought characterize her as a contemporary Goddess and defend her thoughts with equal zealotry. So what? To those who agree with her, I ask, "have Ayn Rand's thought or NOVELS had any demonstrable and specific effect on any society at all, ever?" To those who disagree I ask, "why are you wasting your time?" If it simply amuses you to do so, OK. It's not much different from playing chess. To my mind, Ayn Rand's NOVELS are not particulary novel. They ARE particularly overlong, poorly executed, and, in the main, boring. For quality time, try Plato. Best, Jim  |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"For quality time, try Plato." Excellent choice. |
||
|
Drauntz Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905Los Angeles California |
Rand intentionally changed the definition of "selfishness" and based on that she started her thinking. A confused mind. self-interest is a build in charactor selfish and selfishness is words created by human to describe a unkind human behavior. It is already defined by common sense of a society. I wonder why she wanted to change it. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Jim, Why is it that I just felt like the adult walked in and told us to stop playing with dolls? Steven, Are you arguing that Christianity does not encourage self-sacrifice above and beyond one's own self-interest or that one's self interest necessarily implies a giving up of everything that one holds dear in this world? Whether you like it or not, Christians do indeed say that. The caricature wasn't created by Rand, Christians created it themselves. You can tell me you don't agree with that, you can tell me that that's not true Christianity, but you can't say that it's not there. That's not Rand's fault. Rand is wrong here. Selfishness, the way it is used, from my point of view (insert additional appropriate qualifier here), is not a synonym for evil. It is a functional concept designed to install guilt in others whereby you get them to do what you want. Rand's mistake is to attempt to still frame 'selfish' in descriptive, dictionary terms rather than in active, functional terms. Rand's distaste for the past and current usage of the term is not its dictionary definition but its ability to influence people. She was trying to change that. That is not deceptive though it seems fairly obvious that she could deceive herself as easily as we all deceive ourselves. D, I thought we agreed that self-interest was inarguable? Why are you still prancing about? From Rand's point of view, your statement is nonsensical of insane. Without the producers pursuing their self interest there would be no society. |
||
|
Drauntz Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905Los Angeles California |
Sir Brad, self-interest is a genetic thing. selfishness is an human label and defined by human in common sense or by dictionary. why one wants to redefine it? why just have a new words and give it a meaning of her thought. such as askfnosjf. You may say that coal was white and develop a philosophy based on that. I believe you would have some followers, esp, in winter and under the moon, then coal looks white, after all. |
||
|
Drauntz Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905Los Angeles California |
And sir Brad "From Rand's point of view, your statement is nonsensical of insane. " .....I am glad that you said this, very true. read Sir Balladeer's story of the King. And remember, this world, many believe Einstein's relativity. I believe it too. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I already stated that she makes a mistake here. Did you not read it? What do the rest of your comments mean? |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Brad -- I used to be an adult, but I got outsourced. Jim |
||
|
Drauntz Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905Los Angeles California |
Dear sir Brad, "I already stated that she makes a mistake here. Did you not read it?" ...It is not a mere mistake. it is part of the base of her philosophy. "What do the rest of your comments mean?" If you have defined my statement through Rand's eyes as insane, then why do you ask? "From Rand's point of view, your statement is nonsensical of insane. " practically, I can say that this lady was crazy but she has lost chance to view my statement. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Exactly! |
||
|
Drauntz Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905Los Angeles California |
Dear Sir Brad, ‘Selfishness, the way it is used, from my point of view (insert additional appropriate qualifier here), is not a synonym for evil. It is a functional concept designed to install guilt in others whereby you get them to do what you want.” Which is saying 1. the purpose of A using ‘selfishness” to B is to install guilt feelings in B so B would yield to A’s want ..not true. Guilty does not result in yielding…. 2. What kind of words may cause guilt? Bad words…evil words…so why can “selfishness” make people feel guilty? Because of its previous bad definition!!!! 3. A uses “selfishness” to manipulate B, bad!! 4. B felt guilty on the words of “selfishness” because B is traditionally selfish….bad too. 5. who is good one? 6. so the concept is not functional and illogical. And Plus Sir Ron’s “exactly” I say, one stone, two birds.  |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Regina: quote: When I said "having already demolished the credibility of traditional morals", I was of course referring to her arguments, not to her influence. quote: The short answer is (and it could be explored more) is that she viewed religious-style authority as unreasonable. Though she was mistaken (whether through offense, or some other reason) she would include the idea that morals are imposed from without, and have to do with something other than pure self-interest. For whether or not that idea began with Christianity (Christianity itself assumes that it didn't), it is a religious-like idea appealing to a transcendent moral law. quote: What I mean by "moral authority" is the idea that a transcendent morality really does apply to us all, and to which we all (however imperfectly or unconsciously) make appeal in our dialogue to each other concerning justice and rightness. That kind of rightness does indeed rest with a religious world-view and no other. You are right however that an arbitrary kind of moral authority may co-exist with a non-religious view of things. But that's not what I meant. quote: As anti-Judeo-Christian as she makes herself to be in her writings, I don't think a straw-man is necessary. I always understood a strawman to be a false representation. Is her vociferous apostasy a false or an accurate representation? quote: As I mentioned at the beginning; These ideas are not exclusive to Rand's philosophy. And yes, they are more than sterile ideas. They have affected many things and people, and continue to do so. Brad: quote: Brad, that's not the caricature. That's the paradox. God has your best interest in mind, so it's more important to serve him than yourself alone. But it's too easy to dismiss godliness as another form of self-gratification, if you take the whole of Biblical Theology. If it's another form of narcissism, then its awfully wayward convoluted and daunting to that end. An entire Theological movement came forth in the book of Job to challenge that very cynical and satanic (and not always wrong) idea. It's not that the idea is always wrong, its that it isn't always right. It isn't an absolute, thankfully. What destroys this over-simplistic notion, is simply the love for another. The caricature I was speaking of was a religious demand that is human centered, political, and aimed at creating gain for the clergy using their doctrines as means to control others, rather than to lead people to God. Of course I understand why some cannot see how the caricature is anything other than the real. Decoys can be a problem for the hunted as well as for hunters. quote: There's the caricature again. Or the decoy if you will. Yes, the whole concept of selfishness can be used selfishly, and used to control and manipulate. It can also be used as a real protest to others when real wrongs are being committed, or even better, as a tool for self-examination and making sure the plank is out of my own eye. I can actually appreciate Ron's applause at your nutshell definition of Rand's "selfishness". But that's not all it is. There's a positive side to owning this negative word. There's an unselfish way to use the word selfish. By attacking the terminology, Rand not only steals the lash of the oppressor, but the grooming tool of the neighbor. quote: Am I to seriously believe that the very concept of "selfishness" has influenced people more negatively than positively? With selfish people, I suppose it was bound to go both ways, but certainly not just one. Stephen |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
I guess what I'm saying is that the idea that I can be selfish, sometimes helps me discover how not to be, which is a positive thing. I don't think mere rationalism works at this point. Stephen. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
You're a good man, Stephen. I base that purely on instinct and hope I'm right. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: quote: That it is not always effective is not an argument against what I've said. quote: I don't understand the 'bad words, evil words' here. We aren't talking about magic. 'Selfish' is a trigger word. It sometimes makes people do good things, it sometimes makes people do bad things. Anecdote A (true story): A friend at a bar sits talking to a young, attractive lady. It turns out she's 20 and he's 30 and so he passes on her obvious advances. She feels scorned and replies, "Why are you being selfish?" Anecdote B (yesterday's story): A package from my mother comes yesterday while my wife is at work. My daughter and I open it and most of the stuff is for my daughter. Still, there is one little box with my wife's name on it. My daughter wants to open it, she badgers me to open it. Finally, I tell her to stop being selfish and to wait for her mother. quote: Why is anecdote B bad? quote: Huh? Oh, I get it. Both A and B are bad people. Both bad. Do two bads makes a good? quote: Both bad. I feel like I'm in the Buffy episode where she turns into a cave girl. Buffy good. Beer good. Vampires bad. quote: It worked with my daughter. It is indeed functional. Logical? Illogical? You're not even wrong on that one. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Stephen, I think we agree here. Maybe. That the whole concept can be used selfishly does not, by definition, make the concept good or evil. It makes it a tool. It can certainly be used for self-examination: a way of reassessing one's priorities. Rand's rant (sorry, but you knew that was coming, didn't you?) is trying to break the word free of its kneejerk -- selfish bad -- response. Control and manipulation are not good or evil either. So, how do we determine the difference? Rand's answer is reason. My answer is perhaps just another word for reason: thinking. Your answer? quote: I would give her a more charitable reading than you have. But once you've gotten through a good chunk of 'Shrugged', try to understand what she means, who she's talking about, who she rails against. Rather than 'the base of her philosophy', this definition thing is a minor point. Her concern is with those who use these same tools in ways that hurt society, sometimes not even for their own benefit. Her concern is with those who berate and schackle the great in order to console their own mediocrity. |
||
|
Drauntz Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905Los Angeles California |
Sir Brad, "That it is not always effective is not an argument against what I've said." ...? "I don't understand the 'bad words, evil words' here" ....? "'Selfish' is a trigger word. It sometimes makes people do good things, it sometimes makes people do bad things." ....Selfish is not as same as 'self-interest'. It has greedier concept than it. So, unless you think that it is "not good" and try to read as a stop sign..that is all. Story A, silly lady does not understand the meaning of "selfish" and misused it. Story B. A unreasonable father wrongly labeled the lovely girl's curiosity as "selfishness.' I felt deeply sorry for her. "Do two bads makes a good?" ...No. They are two persons. According to you, jail would be the beat place to produce super kind human beings. "bad" is so concentrated there. |
||
|
Drauntz Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905Los Angeles California |
Dear Sir Brad, "So, how do we determine the difference? Rand's answer is reason. My answer is perhaps just another word for reason: thinking." .....Dear sir, thinking(reasoning) is one of the important function of our brain. But thinking is wired with judging at its beginning. You can't have a thought(or ideas, conceptions,) without judging. can't help. It is also part of the function of brain. here comes the question, by what standard you are judging? Selfish is not bad word? I say fishsel is not bad words and it means "self-interest." why she has to against the common meaning of a words? Given a chance, she might have said my "words" is not your "words" of definition in your dictionary. than why a new language? Again, you may say that coal was white and it looked white when covered in snow. But when you communicate with others, you have to use common concept, right. Otherwise, you will have to spend life time trying to explain why in your view, that coal was white. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
selfish: adj. 1. devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others. 2. characterized by or manifesting concern or care only for oneself: selfish motives. selfishness: n. stinginess resulting from a concern for your own welfare and a disregard of others. quote: How did she misuse the word? quote: How did he misuse the word? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Hey, finally, we're starting to get into a Randian discussion. quote: See above. quote: No, this is not correct. Language is based on a tripartite schema: self, other, and world. Coal is not white so that fails the tripartite schema. In Japan, a whale is called a fish, I call it a mammal. There is no reason for me to call it a fish, there is no reason for them to call it a mammal. We both understand each other, not because we 'have to' use common words or concepts, but because we understand each other's concepts. How is that possible? Because we share a common world. It's not that simple, but I hope you get the point. |
||
|
Drauntz Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905Los Angeles California |
Sir Brad, "Anecdote A (true story): A friend at a bar sits talking to a young, attractive lady. It turns out she's 20 and he's 30 and so he passes on her obvious advances. She feels scorned and replies, "Why are you being selfish?"" ......why did the lady say "why are you being selfish?" "regardless of others." who is the others here. "Anecdote B (yesterday's story): A package from my mother comes yesterday while my wife is at work. My daughter and I open it and most of the stuff is for my daughter. Still, there is one little box with my wife's name on it. My daughter wants to open it, she badgers me to open it. Finally, I tell her to stop being selfish and to wait for her mother." why you want to interfere something only related to your mother, your wife. It is not yours at all. You have no right to say that She was behaving selfish. You might ask her to call her grandma or her mother if she could open it. A kind mother might just let a sweet girl to have a peek. Sorry, she has a such a self-interested father who put his nose into other's business. simply because he wanted to. "regardless of others."...others=Sir Brad |
||
|
Drauntz Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905Los Angeles California |
Sir Brad, "In Japan, a whale is called a fish," .....no, it is called クジラ(ku ji la). "I call it a mammal." You may call it anything as long as you can explain it. If I have a chance I will ask you daughter how her father teaches her about the mammal. "There is no reason for me to call it a fish," ....no, you are right because it is not a fish. "there is no reason for them to call it a mammal." why? that is their business. "We both understand each other," ...I don't think so. "not because we 'have to' use common words or concepts, but because we understand each other's concepts." ...because you will draw the same pictures. so, selfish will have the same picture when 10 people draw it. But you want to draw it differently based on your own interest. get yourself into trouble again, Sir Brad!!! |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: As far as I can tell, she was referring to 'you' -- my friend -- did she use the word incorrectly. That you make your own judgements is not relevant to the question. quote: Because that's my job. I was entrusted by both my wife and my mother. quote: Indeed, I did not open it. quote: Why not? Did I use the word incorrectly? See above. quote: Why would I do that? The rules of gift giving are, for the most part, clear in my family. My mother indicated her wishes by writing my wife's name on the box, my wife's by her past actions. If I called either one of them over this minor incident, they would think that I had been shirking my responsibilities as a father. I would agree with them. quote: Then that kind mother would not understand the rules of gift giving at least in my family -- and I dare say in most families. quote: It's my business. Teaching my daughter how to behave responsibly is my job. To pretend otherwise is not to understand how families -- or at least how my family -- works. quote: I take my role seriously. I'm not perfect, but I rarely, if ever, have made a decision concerning my daughter arbitrarily. quote: This is confusing agents again. The others in this case must be my wife and my mother. My daughter did show concern by asking for my permission first. It makes no sense to equate me with the 'others' of the definition. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Okay, but then a whale is not a mammal, it is, well, a whale. quote: Of course not, it is a whale. quote: We agree. In different conditions of course, it would help them to use the accepted terminology. But I guess you've given up on your common concepts across the board thesis. quote: Why not? We understood each other in that as far as both sides could tell the interaction was a successful one. Is there a secret that you're not telling me? quote: Yep, that's indeed a good start. quote: Selfish, I suspect, would have ten different pictures drawn. Selfish is not a whale. But yet again, we have the beginning of a Randian discussion. Do you wish to continue? quote: I don't mind getting into trouble. It's a little difficult to keep a conversation going when one has deep doubts about whether the other even believes what she is in fact saying. |
||
|
Drauntz Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905Los Angeles California |
Dear Sir Brad "Selfish, I suspect, would have ten different pictures drawn"... it is indeed a suspect. But there are dictionaries that define it. You may continue your fishy selling and I will continue to judge if I shall buy it. |
||
|
Drauntz Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905Los Angeles California |
Sir Brad, "Why would I do that? The rules of gift giving are, for the most part, clear in my family. My mother indicated her wishes by writing my wife's name on the box, my wife's by her past actions. If I called either one of them over this minor incident, they would think that I had been shirking my responsibilities as a father." they are right. let the girl call to ask. If mother says no, then it is no. why don't you grant your daughter's "self-interest" or "selfish" by Rand meaning? |
||
|
Drauntz Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905Los Angeles California |
Dear Sir Brad "Anecdote B (yesterday's story): A package from my mother comes yesterday while my wife is at work. My daughter and I open it and most of the stuff is for my daughter. Still, there is one little box with my wife's name on it. My daughter wants to open it, she badgers me to open it. Finally, I tell her to stop being selfish and to wait for her mother." "I take my role seriously. I'm not perfect, but I rarely, if ever, have made a decision concerning my daughter arbitrarily." Tell me how you define "selfish" based on your own words? good or bad? with a glass of Vodka, i saw a clearer picture of you. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Who is a suspect? Didn't we already cover the dictionary thing? It is you who have not addressed the issue, I already have. I'm not selling anything. In a certain sense, from what you do here, you are probably the most Randian character I know. My only guess is that it hits a little too close to home. quote: Which mother? My mother or her mother? Let's see, do I call her mother during her teaching hours to ask this question? Do I call my mother at two o'clock in the morning to ask her? quote: I am. You always seem to forget what Rand is talking about when she talks about selfishness. This transaction has nothing to do with my daughter, it is between my mother and my wife. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: See above, it's been posted twice (thanks, Ron) quote: That's exactly how I see it. I happen to think it was the right thing to do -- a good thing. quote: Vodka? Nah, my cocktail of choice is gin/tonic tall. Mostly wine these days with the occasional beer and soju on family occasions. Ahh, I have to take that back. I have a good friend who makes a mean white russian. |
||
|
Drauntz Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905Los Angeles California |
Sir Brad, Tell me how you define "selfish" based on your own words? good or bad? How Do you use this word on your own daughter? as good or bad? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Those are my words. |
||
|
Drauntz Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905Los Angeles California |
Sir Brad, good! last nail of your rthought. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
So Brad, you're actually closer to my view than I suspected. You recognize the idea of "selfishness" is not invalid, untrue, or without usefulness. Rand apparantly would have disagreed. Stephen. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
quote: Bravo, Sir GalaBrad. reminded me of this quote. quote: Thanks for passing your perceptive cup. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
it is plain enough to see that there is some manipulation going on here with language But Rand, having already demolished the credibility of traditional morals, How far is too far, in making language say what you want it to say? Can there be a kind of deception involved? BTW, lest anyone feel that I am picking on Ayn Rand, Now how could anybody come up with that conclusion, Stephanos? In my opinion, your problem with her - which has become evident in many of you comments,- is her views on organized religion and not really so much whether or not she changed a word definition. You question her views on reason and logic by quoting Jesus, Paul and excerpts from a book that includes apples and snakes, a big boat holding two of every animal in the world and which is about as far away from reason and logic as the mind can get. Rand did not discount to possibility of an "afterlife" or a superior force that created life in the first place. She simply rejected all of the ORGANIZED attempts to portray it, whether it be a child in swaddling clothes, a sitting man with a huge, protruding belly, a fellow in the desert wearing sheets or the Sun God Ra or the thousands of other images that have been fed to the populace by organizers profiting from such creations, either in the form of power, wealth or both. This excerpt from the Fountainhead is a good example of her views... "Every system of ethics that preached sacrifice grew into a world power and ruled millions of men. Of course, you must dress it up. You must tell people that they'll achieve a superior kind of happiness by giving up everything that makes them happy. You don't have to be too clear about it. Use big, vague words. "Universal Harmony"-"Eternal Spirit"-"Divine purpose"-"Nirvana"-"Paradise"-"Racial Supremacy"-"The Dictatorship of the Proletariat". Internal corruption, Peter. That's the oldest one of all. The farce has been going on for centuries and men still fall for it. Yet the test should be so simple: just listen to any prophet and if you hear him speak of sacrifice - run. Run faster than from a plague. It stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting sacrificial offerings. Where there is service there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master. But if you ever hear a man telling you that you must be happy, that it is your natural right. that your first duty is to yourself - that will be the man who is not after your soul. That will be the man who has nothing to gain froim you. But let him come and you'll scream your empty heads off, howling that he's a selfish monster. So the racket is safe for many, many centuries But here you might have noticed something. I said, "It stands to reason". Do you see? Men have a weapon against you. reason. So you must be very sure to take it away from them. Cut the props from under it. But be careful. Don't deny outright. Never deny anything outright, you give your hand away. Don't say reason is evil - thtough some have gone that far and with astonishing success. Just say that reason is limited. That there's something above it. What? You don't have to be too clear about that, either. The field's inexhaustible. 'Instinct'-'Feeling'-'Revelation'-'Divine Intuition'-'dialectic Materialism'. If you get caught at some crucial point and somebody tells you that your doctrine doesn't make sense - you're ready for him. You tell him that there's something above sense. That here he must not try to think, he must FEEL. He must BELIEVE. Suspend reason and you play it dueces wild. Anything goes in any manner you wish whenever you need it. You've got him. Can you rule a thinking man? We don't want any thinking men." Her views on an "afterlife" were simple. We don't know if it's there or not and we ain't gonna find out here so why waste time worrying about it? The best we can do is to live our lives to the best of our abilities, our fullest potentials while respecting ourselves and the rights of others, and if there IS a reward in a place called heaven or nirvana or anywhere else, we may qualify. If not, we'll never know, anyway. |
||
|
Drauntz Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905Los Angeles California |
Dear Sir Balladeer, If not for your sound pen name here, I would think that those quoted words were screamed out by that naïve girly icon. I know I would read some useless things but I have to say that her many presumptions were not true in life. Nobody is so out of biological characters to sacrifice anything just because he was asked for. There is no such circuit build in brain. She has a very imaginative mind. she should have written many poems. Here is an example of her “sacrifice” of real life. Alisa Zinovievna Rosenbaum was brought up by her loving parents with night feeding, day dapper changing and being played with and grew up in a very good financial environment. she was well loved by her siblings. She was given a free college education. she was a very gifted writer and she was so warmly welcomed in America and she was well treated by many Americans and was well respect by many Americans too. Then, a beggar wanted 1 dollar from her for a meal. She scorned “ Sacrifice is wrong and I have a rule of rational self-interest”. She here was against human nature because her build-in conscience would have urged her to give out the 1 dollar(because she has had many, many, many love of human beings, of money and of if she identifies herself as a Jew--genetically truth, the God of her ancestors) but she by her “self made” rule refused. This is a mentally self-torture. She was talking about that in this world many people were screaming at a hungry child that he shall not eat.(her meaning of sacrifice) Moral is talking about that if your have an extra cookie, or if you are not hungry, share the cookie out, which is the best that human being can behave. However most of the time, we would rather over stuff ourselves or simply throw it away than sharing. Nobody is as stupid as she thought. And her philosophy is from Communism teaching. [This message has been edited by Drauntz (07-08-2007 10:07 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Balladeer: quote: It's not only her views about Christianity, but also the fact that she has attempted to personally (for all of us) redefine something with a very poignant usage and history, by saying it is something else. If that didn't bother me, I wouldn't have mentioned it. Of course it goes without saying that I'm interested in why she did such a thing, which is obviously inseparable from her philosophical views. quote: Whether or not things Jesus and Paul taught, or whether stories (didactic or absolutely literal) in scripture are as far away from reason and logic as the mind can get, is another matter of discussion altogether, and each instance would have to be discussed. You may disbelieve a reported event. But you cannot rightly call it illogical. There's no logical necessity in the fact (or description) that you have two eyes or three. It's not logical that you have two lungs and one liver. It is simply a statement of what is. Likewise, what the Bible reports as miraculous may be said to be alogical but not illogical. It is simply reportage. If you want to say that it is illogical to imagine that natural law may be violated (or superceded) in the form of miracle, then you have also stepped outside of the role of logician. The question is not whether it is logical that natural law should be contravened, but whether or not it ever has been, or ever is. Now you may believe so philosophically, since there is a pre-committed philosophical belief which tacitly denies that miracles can happen. That belief had its most vocal expression in the 19th century. But that has little to do with logic either, but with the devotion of presupposition. quote: Pardon me, but the ideas contained in this are not at all simple. Even the small sentence "We ain't gonna find out here", is chock full of epistemology. How does she know that? There are certainly those who have claimed to have found out "here". You can call them all deluded or unintelligent. But history doesn't bear that out. I know many brighter than you or myself who are convinced of Eternal Life. If it's even remotely possible to know, then the assumption about "wasting time" also becomes questionable. The problem presented by the Judeo-Christian worldview is that none of us "live life to the best of our abilities, or our fullest potentials". No one always properly respects themselves, or the "rights" of others. So in one sweep, self-merited heavenly reward is questionable (apart from something called Grace). And how one can come to the conclusion that there are real "rights" in a naturalistic universe (without God), is still a question I'm unsure of. quote: It seems like Ayn always comes (in her descriptions of religion) from the standpoint of distrust. Could it be possible that someone who speaks of sacrifice could at the same time speak of God's sacrifice toward us? And could it be possible that any sacrifice we're called to, is light by comparison? Could it also be possible that a man who recommends these things to others is not doing it for personal gain? The highest things are the most perverted, and in their purest form, the most rare. Ayn speaks from personal pain, no doubt, but personal pain can sometimes cloud our objectivity. (or in this case objectivism )I can't help notice the tension in this passage you quoted. Ayn accuses the religious priestly types as being out for personal gain (ie selfish), using the very idea that she seems to be discrediting: that people may really be selfish in an immoral way, that should be disdained. quote: Actually Ayn herself goes "above sense" with her philosophical egoism. It was by sense, that most have believed that people may be either unduly self-concerned, or admirablly self-forgetting in their relations with others. To chalk all of the traditionally virtuous up to varying forms of self-interest, even to the point of bending the very language, comes from a metaphysical kind of statement: All human motives come from self interest. And this premise is not derived empirically, from mere sense. The proof is that where sense seems to contradict it, the dogma kicks in and suggests that what we see is not what it seems. I actually have no problem with that, since I also hold to a view which states that what is seen may be deceptive, and that there are realities which are not immediately obvious, the "unseen" things. I'm just noting that Ayn's philosophy itself seems to go beyond reason, and certainly beyond empiricism. Let's be honest about that much. And her statement that the religious are unthinking? She admired Fyodor Dostoevsky for both his profound philosophical mind, and his literature, but vehemently disagreed with him because of his Christianity. There's little to back up the statement that religious commitment correlates with lack of thinking. Stephen. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
but also the fact that she has attempted to personally (for all of us) redefine something with a very poignant usage and history, by saying it is something else. She simply defined it for herself and printed it publicly. She didn't waste her time trying to change anything for "all of us", whoever that is. She simply called it the way she saw it. No one was under any obligation to change their own definitions. You may disbelieve a reported event. But you cannot rightly call it illogical. Likewise, what the Bible reports as miraculous may be said to be alogical but not illogical. It is simply reportage. J.K. Rowlings reported many events concerning the life of Harry Potter. Does that mean then that we cannot refer to them as illogical? There's no logical necessity in the fact (or description) that you have two eyes or three. It's not logical that you have two lungs and one liver. Here I'm afraid you have lost me completely. I read that part several times and still have no idea what the connection is between logic and how many body parts we have or why it would be illogical that we have the number we do. There are certainly those who have claimed to have found out "here". You can call them all deluded or unintelligent. But history doesn't bear that out. I know many brighter than you or myself who are convinced of Eternal Life. That is your response, that people have "claimed" to have found out here? And that people smarter than us are convinced of Eternal Life? People smarter than us were also convinced that the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth. History does not bear WHAT out? Has anyone in history actually offered proof of a life after death? Has anyone come back to report it? Yes, of course, you will find people who will say yes and claim to have spoken to their loved ones beyond the grave. Is THAT what you wish to use to combat her view that no one knows? The problem presented by the Judeo-Christian worldview is that none of us "live life to the best of our abilities, or our fullest potentials". No one always properly respects themselves, or the "rights" of others. So in one sweep, self-merited heavenly reward is questionable (apart from something called Grace). And how one can come to the conclusion that there are real "rights" in a naturalistic universe (without God), is still a question I'm unsure of. I agree that none of us live life to our fullest potential. Does that matter? It's the attempt that counts, whether we fall short or not. At least In Rand's world people have the chance. The Judeo-Christian view makes that impossible with their yoke of "original sin" which makes you guilty from birth and obligates you to live your life trying to atone for the sins you had no choice but to be born with. The meaning of life does not have to be in the destination. It can be in the journey. Ayn Rand believes in the journey. Could it be possible that someone who speaks of sacrifice could at the same time speak of God's sacrifice toward us? And could it be possible that any sacrifice we're called to, is light by comparison? The sacrifice they are requesting of you is real. Calling it light by comparison to a sacrifice which may or may not be mythical is quite a feat, one they are very good at. Ayn accuses the religious priestly types as being out for personal gain Not really. The church I attend (yes, I do) is a wonderful organization. They do all they can to help people. They have fundraisers, they set up soup kitchens for the poor, they welcome people into the neighborhood with loaves of bread and food, regardless of their religious views, they send teams of doctors and dentists to poor countries to offer aid, the list goes on and on. The pastor is an incredible man, tireless in his efforts who does it for belief in his faith and a strong desire to help others. Could he be more financially successful in another field? I have no doubt, but I doubt that any other field would give him more personal satisfaction. I am a part of it because of what they do for others. The pastor knows that I do not share their religious views but it doesn't matter. I do my part because I want to and I believe in their goodness and applaud their kindness. Whether or not I think their beliefs are logical or reasonable, the fact remains that their belief is what drives them on to help others and that's jake with me. I'm sure there are thousands of such churches across the country who do the same thing. If Ayn Rand would have a problem with this, then I would have a problem with Ayn Rand in that regard. I believe that her stance against religious leaders are those who use sacrifice as a weapon against the givers, the ones who do their utmost to implant shame and humility in the victim in order to extract as much wealth or power out of them as possible, those who would cause people to beat themselves with whips to atone for their sins (hey, it doesn't happen much anymore but it used to!) She is against religious leaders who do their best to tear down the human spirit instead of lifting man's spirit up. She is against religion when it turns it's followers into victims from which it feeds. Anyone check the value of the Vatican lately? How many people could be fed with those hundreds of millions of dollars? What about the multi-million dollar cathedrals in New York and other major cities, paid for by people being constantly told they are not worthy and must give, give, give to have any kind of chance to enter this "Kingdom of Heaven"? According to Rand, when anyone or any organization uses victims to achieve their personal gain, they are wrong. Personally, I don't care what one believes in. You may think that God is a giant turtle crawling across the sky and, if your belief in that turtle causes you to live your life in a rational, moral way without interfering with the rights of others, then be my guest. I will not join you in your belief, nor will I allow you to make me feel guilty for not believing the same, but I will not condemn you for yours. How can one live one's life in a rational way while believing in a giant turtle, you say? Good question...substitute "bible" for "turtle" and I could ask the same. |
||
|
Drauntz Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905Los Angeles California |
So very good and powerful, Stephanos!!!! |
||
|
Drauntz Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905Los Angeles California |
My dear Sir Balladeer, do you mean that because Rand(and all of us)saw clearly that many people were extremely selfish, in religion or out religion or in Russia so she tried to tell other sides to be selfish but in a different meaning? (or self-interest) Vatican asks money to forgive sinner's sins. Sinners pay to get rid of sins. All in their BELIEF and to their own best-interest. Why did Rand bother? Do you mean that Rand was like that yours is false, mine is true? Does she know that to shake one's belief is to shake violently one's own personal self-interest? ..it is like to try to turn off one's inner "light"?..means that it is not that simple if she did not start from the need of human life. Do you know how your pastor wanted to be a CEO and reluctant to be a pastor? ask him if he has the struggle. He will tell you a big YES. 100% Christians, (not other religion though) are reluctant to help, to give or to do extra for others and many are worst than average people, but they help, they give and go extra step for others. why? can't help. it is out of control of oneself. if it is out fear, or for the reward, what is the difference between a well trained dog and people of any religion? not doubt, Rand did saw a distorted world. And the truth is that this world is ugly. But the ugliness is not because some people. it is because all of human beings, or most of them, except Drauntz though. PS. My dear sir Balladeer, i have 100 sorry prepared here if any time I make you upset under the hot Florida sun. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
fear not, Drauntz. Nothing you can say would upset me.  |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Balladeer: quote: Mike, she was a philosopher who published. She was also vociferous, made a calculated effort to utilize fiction as a way to communicate her philosophy to the droves who would never read philsophical works, and made use of main-stream talk-shows, and radio interviews, among other things. How can you say that she was not strongly broadcasting her views with an absolutist kind of persuasion? By the way, I don't think that's wrong to do. I simply think she was wrong in some of what she said. But c'mon, she surely wasn't just quietly publishing her views with the purpose of expressing private thoughts with the epithet "this is just my opinion". quote: For one, Rowling admits them to be fiction before hand, and is therefore NOT making historical claims. Secondly, if they were, that doesn't mean that they are of the same as historical claims in the Bible. You can't cover historical credibility, or logical coherency, of particular claims with such a general statement. quote: Mike, that's my point exactly. Likewise I have no idea what the connection is between logic and the resurrection of Christ, or why it would be illogical for Paul to claim that all men have sinned and fallen short of God's glory, and stand in need of mercy and grace. quote: Um, yes, that is my response. I'm not saying you have to believe it. I'm only pointing out that your (or Ayn's) claim that no one really knows is itself questionable, and anything but a simple statement. It forces a kind of agnosticism upon others, that it isn't willing to accept for itself. She sounds more sure of unsurety than many preachers sound of religion. quote: Yes, and they were acting upon the information they had. The thing is, there are people smarter than you and I both who believe thoroughly in eternal life, who are acting upon the same general data that we have at the present ... No large gap of time to paint them as ignorant due to past limitations. Of course there are people smarter than you or I both that don't believe. But I wasn't making the false appeal to intellectualism. I was responding to Rand's quote which equated religious belief with lack of thinking. quote: Jesus did. quote: Of course not. But I don't rule out the possibility of a supernatural world. I happen to think that Divine revelation is valid. I also happen to think that historical reconstruction which attempts to explain the New Testament without the miraculous, is much more problematic than taking at it's own claims. They wouldn't have braved being ostracized, and killed, for the corpse of a person they were merely claiming to be raised from the dead. quote: Is that a theological statement? Those are our standards, but does the same hold true when it comes to God's standards? quote: In God's world, people have the chance. quote: Actually the culmination of the Judeo-Christian view, is that we can't make atonement for our sins. That's why Christ did so on Calvary. quote: Christianity also affirms that the journey is important, but not without the reality of the destination. It would be ludicrous to take a "trip to the mountains", if there were no mountains, wouldn't it? I will at least point out that the word "journey" denotes a destination. quote: It is light by comparison to what Christ did for us. Let me ask you a question, do you believe in God? quote: Good, then it is a certain kind of religious expression that you doubt. Rand seems to disparage religion as a whole. Of course I have much more to read. quote: Mike, you can ask anything you want. That doesn't make the answers the same, or even the same kind. And don't pretend your reference to the turtle was not to disparage Christian beliefs (if not Christian charity). Therefore your statement of egalitarian belief is kind of suspect to me. It's almost as if you're saying, "I respect anyone's belief no matter how stupid and irrational they happen to be." I've actually asked on this forum how one can be sure of a real "rationality" without believing in God. If you are merely reconfigured matter, how are you sure your rationality holds truth? The conferring of these kinds of powers upon an impersonal cosmos (for mere parts of it to come to the point of a "big" kind of insight about the whole) is one of the most fantastical notions I've ever heard. If I didn't believe in God I would have to go with the anti-rationalists like Schopenhaur, Nietzsche, (and later in life) Bertrand Russell. They are the most relentlessly logical and honest philosophers I have seen, in keeping with their atheism. Ascribing to a "goodness" and a "rationality" that simply stands upon our particular biology for the moment, out does the most primitive animism in my opinion. Enjoying the talk, Stephen. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Stephanos, I applaud your faith but you are arguing a philosophy that deals in reason and logic by stating as fact Christian biblical happenings, which literally are suspect to say the least. Your line of defense is that "one cannot know". So be it. There is no way to really continue a discussion where one participant uses belief in a form of mythology, where nothing can be proven, as his rebuttal. It's almost as if you're saying, "I respect anyone's belief no matter how stupid and irrational they happen to be." No, what I am saying is that I will be my own judge as to what I feel is the validity of their beliefs. I will respect their beliefs in their beliefs without necessarily respecting their beliefs (now THAT'S a tongue-twister!) just as I respect your belief in Christianity without necessarily believing in it myself. It reminds me of an old Peanut cartoon strip where Snoopy is laying on top of his doghouse and the caption reads, "It doesn't matter what you believe in as long as you are sincere." You think my use of a turtle is disrespectful? The Indians thought the world rested on the back of a huge tortoise. Many religions have used animals to represent their gods. The Egyptians thought cats were gods (and the cats have never forgotten it!). But then I suppose that's different because they don't believe in YOUR religion. They say religious wars are those fought to find out who has the strongest imaginary friend and i consider that a good analogy. Do I believe in God? I have to say I do. The complexity of life, of the human body, the way everything fits together so well, consciousness...there are so many things in life that are orchestrated so perfectly that it is almost impossible to imagine it was not created by some grand design. Do I believe in organized religion's creations as to what this great creator is? No. I believe organized religions were founded for one reason....power. The crusades are an excellent example of that. Throughout history leaders have used religion as the base to get what they want, from the Inquisition to the suicide bombers of today. I have not found a religion that portrays our creator, or God, in a manner I can believe in. If I ever do, it will be a religion that exalts man, not preaches that he get down on his knees and beg for forgiveness. I've actually asked on this forum how one can be sure of a real "rationality" without believing in God. Believing in God or believing in Jesus? One can use a rationality for belief in God for the same reasons i gave in the preceding paragraph. That doesn't make Jesus any more real than Buddha, Mohammed, Tao, the druids or the hundreds of gods the Egyptians, Inces, Aztecs and who-knows-else believed in. They are all figureheads, all concoctions of whatever religion created them. Ayn Rand made it very clear. Since no one can know if there is their particular brand of God or if there is an afterlife, why not direct your efforts to your life here on this planet? Sounds reasonable to me.... Actually, in my own personal opinion, I believe Ayn Rand DID believe in a God or afterlife of some kind, else why would she advocate anything? She preached that man should live his life to the best of his abilities, that he strive to be the best he could be, that he did not impose on the rights of others to do the same.....why if it were only to end in the grave anyway? She preached purpose and yet what purpose would be served if life were to terminate being covered by earth in a grave and nothing more? She simply did not feel the need, or reason, to expound on something impossible to prove and belived that life here was what should be focused on and that those who tell you to sacrifice your life here for rewards on some afterlife level are evil. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Wow! So that's why! Any thoughts on the enigmatic Korean woman? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Balladeer: quote: Actually I never said that "one cannot know". That seems to be your (and according to you Rand's) take on questions of spirituality. Remember? Biblical historicity can be only be proven to the degree that any ancient history can be proven. The miraculous aspects I believe because I have known miracles myself. In the New Testament the miraculous becomes more central to the analysis of history, and therefore the history becomes more difficult to explain without it. But whatever the case is, it is different than "mythology" where "nothing may be proven". 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. quote: The obvious difference is, they believed it. So yes, when you said that "bible" and "turtle" were interchangeable, you were making an essentially negative statement. There's nothing wrong with that, other than you are assuming that the two beliefs are proportionate and perfectly comparable. We could have a separate thread about how Christianity history differs from mythology if you wish, though the thread has been done before (some time before you started hanging out here in philo 101). quote: Actually due to my Christian belief, I would have to say cats are idols. My wife subscribes to the idolatry by catering to their every whim. I just exist in a kind of smouldering prophetic protest, (quietly of course for fear of excessive scratches). quote: There's one problem with that. Organized religions were all at one time unorganized. And often their "organization" led to a veering from their original standards. 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. He warned Peter that "those who live by the sword will die by the sword". 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. It shouldn't be used as an excuse not to consider the revelation given by Christ on its own terms. Jesus himself said that few would follow the purity of that revelation to the end. But, as much as I point out that it is no reason for avoidance, being offended at religious apostasy is a problem that I sympathize with. quote: Yes I agree with you. Religion has been used selfishly. quote: If your conception is that the Bible devalues and belittles mankind, I think you ought to reconsider that view. Man was created in the very image of God (no small epithet of honor). The eighth Psalm in the Old Testament psalter muses "What is man that you are mindful of him, or the son of man that you care for him? You made him a little lower than God, and crowned him with glory and honor". Mankind (not only mankind, but every indivdual man woman and child) is considered worth God sending his own son to die for. So why all the reprimanding, all the rebuke of sin, etc ...? Because the Bible recognizes the truth that the greater they are, the harder they fall. The higher the being, the more convoluted and lamentable is its corruption. You may disagree with that assessment but it is realistic. All of the compaints you issued above, about crusades, power plays, and despicable tendencies to oppress others for personal advantage, are in line with my view not yours. I am permitted to view man as a King and a Tyrant. Why? Because that what he is. Blaise Pascal once wrote: "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 whether you realize it or not, this fits your typical approach to humanity (in discussion and otherwise). You certainly don't act and speak as if everyone, every act, and every motive is exalted and noble. Christian theology of fallen greatness matches the realism of observation. Don't get stuck with a false philosophy that doesn't take all into account, but only half of man's condition. The greatest loves can turn into the stormiest kind of hate. But indifference can do neither. Oh and by the way, this nobility only needs to get down on his knees and beg forgiveness if he really needs to! I know this one does, at least! quote: 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. Make another thread. quote: I suppose it would be reasonable, if it were true that "no one can know". But the conclusion definitely depends upon that premise, which oddly involves an absolute knowledge of the agnosticism of everyone else. Also there's no reason to think that God doesn't help direct our "efforts here on planet earth". Being "heavenly minded" doesn't have to mean being "no earthly good". Time is partly the determiner of our eternity, and presents our greatest challenge here and now. quote: I'm pretty sure she claimed to be an atheist. Upon what are you basing your personal opinion of her theism? Why advocate anything if there is no God, is an argument I've been using for years. But I assure you not everyone sees it that way. They take the Imago Dei they possess (which can't dispose of telos and purpose, despite their philosophy) quite for granted. quote: But there again, that depends upon the premise that the present always outweighs the demands of the future, and the premise that the demands of the "life to come" cannot be known. I've already demonstrated that these are questionable. It also depends upon a cynicism that is thoroughgoing and non-negotiable. I'm cynical myself of much, but I don't think everyone telling me to "lay up treasure in heaven" is doing so with an evil intent. If there's a Heaven, then it sounds pretty reasonable to me. 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. later, Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (07-10-2007 12:26 PM).] |
||
|
Drauntz Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905Los Angeles California |
My dear Sir Balladeer, "I have not found a religion that portrays our creator, or God, in a manner I can believe in. If I ever do, it will be a religion that exalts man, not preaches that he get down on his knees and beg for forgiveness." ....why? Human's fault or God's fault? "Ayn Rand made it very clear. Since no one can know if there is their particular brand of God or if there is an afterlife, why not direct your efforts to your life here on this planet? Sounds reasonable to me.... " .....How? if every one is so greedy. even A nice person like Drauntz is bothering you now. How can you have peaceful life here in the planet? Sir Brad has already bothered his little daughter in many ways. So, how can we have our own way in this Planet? |
||
|
Drauntz Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905Los Angeles California |
Sir Brad, "Any thoughts on the enigmatic Korean woman?" ....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. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
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 2007-03-16
Posts 2905Los Angeles California |
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 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Let's see. How many people can I upset today. quote: As our Dear Leader once said, "Bring it on!" |
||
|
Drauntz Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905Los Angeles California |
Sir Brad, I SAID that I shall see less of you here!!!!! read a story to your lovely daughter. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I thought it was your turn. |
||
|
Drauntz Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905Los Angeles California |
"The thought of a great poet is sort of dream." --Drauntz |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
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
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Balladeer: quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: If that's the case, then I wouldn't want a cot next to him. quote: 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
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
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 2007-03-16
Posts 2905Los Angeles California |
  |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
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
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: 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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
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
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Balladeer: quote: 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: 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: 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 2007-03-16
Posts 2905Los Angeles California |
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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
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 2007-03-16
Posts 2905Los Angeles California |
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. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
