»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Honor
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Honor |
|
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan 
|
. In the 1961 film “El Cid” a young Rodrigo asks a man who warns him off from deadly combat: “Can a man live without honor?” to which his adversary answers: “No”. What is “honor” now? . |
||
| © Copyright 2009 John Pawlik - All Rights Reserved | |||
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Honour is not sharing your last bite of KFC or MacDonalds with your girl friend so that she won't die a horrible death from additives poisoning. |
||
|
Falling rain
since 2008-01-31
Posts 2178Small town, Illinois |
Lol. MB, I'll have to agree with you.  I say its doing the right thing, having integrity, be respectful, trustworthy, and keeping your word. If I were right, I'd say that the world has lost their honor. |
||
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
John- I would have to say that honor is respecting others and yourself enough to do what is right simply because it is the right thing to do... unfortunately, not too many people are willing to be "honorable" according to my thoughts. Too many people are willing to fight- and kill, occasionally- because someone's words required them to "defend" their honor... Too many people are willing to find honor in the killing of 2,749 people whose only crime was going to work; too many people are willing to exterminate an entire race of people, or an entire culture in order to honor their own race, and their beliefs; too many people... well, you get the idea. There was a time when even enemy combatants were willing to show respect and dignity to each other (to "honor" them) regardless of the uniform. There is the Union soldier on Mary's Heights during the battle of Fredricksburg who was tending to a wounded Confederate soldier, simply because it was the human thing to do; there was the German pilot who showed a B-25 pilot the direction he needed to fly in order to get home, and flew on his wing as far as he could to ensure he got there safely. Yeah, there is definitely too much "dis"honor going on in the world today. For those who have fought for it, Freedom has a flavor the protected will never know. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. I remember a bird colonel in boot camp telling us a story of how it took two Marines killed to bring a wounded Marine in from a rice paddy in Vietnam. His point was, whatever the cost, Marines don’t knowingly leave a Marine behind. Of course by then, 69, beyond Tet and delusions, (many who were there enlisted already expecting to die), he was preaching to the choir. It’s probably the same now which makes Marines at least in a certain sense incomprehensible. . |
||
|
Yoinn Senior Member
since 2007-08-16
Posts 649Michigan |
The meaning of honor can vary between person to person, generation to generation, and continent to continent. A heardsman in Uganda most likly will have a different definition of honor than a stock broker in New York. My most universel definition I guess would be: the williness to suffer some sort of diminishment to uphold a belief or a promise made. "diminishment" could mean money, stature, phyical harm or even death. Thanks Yoin |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Honor is being true to your sense of values. I remember when Bobby Jones lost a major golf tournament by calling a penalty on himself which no one else saw. When praised for such honesty, he responded that they may as well praise a man for not robbing a bank, that doing the right thing should be expected, not rewarded. On the other side of that coin, I play golf with a fellow whose motto is, "It ain't cheating if no one else saw it." Go figure.... |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
If it is a question between putting aside honour to save life or sacraficing life to save honour, I think most men today would rightly choose the first. Or to put it another way, they see life as the most important honor. Laws, morals and civilized treatment are always very important to life, but life is even more important, for it comes first and it is the means by which we defend other things that are important to us in the first place. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "If it is a question between putting aside honour to save life or sacraficing life to save honour, I think most men today would rightly choose the first. Or to put it another way, they see life as the most important honor." So no women and children first anymore . . . That would make Titanic a different story, ( unless Nancy knows karate). . |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "If it is a question between putting aside honour to save life or sacraficing life to save honour, I think most men today would rightly choose the first. Or to put it another way, they see life as the most important honor." “Yet the defining image of contemporary Canadian maleness is not M Lepine/Gharbi but the professors and the men in that classroom, who, ordered to leave by the lone gunman, meekly did so, and abandoned their female classmates to their fate—an act of abdication that would have been unthinkable in almost any other culture throughout human history." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89cole_Polytechnique_massacre#Controversy . |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
That is not the same thing, Huan. I meant voluntarily giving up life instead of an ideal or standard, not voluntarily risking one's life for another's life. On one hand, risking life is not the same as outrightly giving it up, and on the other hand nor is risking one's life for another's life no longer putting life first. Serving another's life, not just one's own, is not a less, but a greater example of putting life first and foremost. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Is anyone’s life more valuable than honor? If yes, can it be said those men in Montreal sacrificed honor to save lives, their own, and thereby it was good? . |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Yes and yes. If a risk is not in favour of life it is not a risk worth taking. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: Unthinkable maybe - undone, I doubt it. It's just that humans don't tend to parade their shame. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I don't think their choice was a shame if they most likely would have been shotten choosing otherwise. Sometimes carelessly going against a danger that most likely means death may turn out well, but that is hardly a rule to be expected, rather than a rarity to be admired when it does happen. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
John, The Titanic is probably not a good representation of "Women and children first." The rich boarded the lifeboats first, and there weren't enough lifeboats because they were an "eyesore" on deck. Grandiosity was premiere aboard the Titanic. But the Captain did go down with the ship. The etymology of "honor" seems pretty sound throughout, with one meaning derivation of use in the late 1300's that described "a woman's chastity." Otherwise, the word is basically masculine, which is interesting. Here's a couple of granted exceptions: A Queen was empowered to appoint her Maid of Honor, to Knight, and to appoint other ranks of honor in her court, council, and military. Although, primarily, in the event of dishonor: A patriarchal council rules upon the consequences. Even though women are not, by far, excluded from the meaning and offerings of honor, historically, males have shaped the word with many benevolent and virtuous offerings.(Many times for the sake of a woman or a child.) We still need heroes, noblemen, patriots, gentleman, and even men of their word whose grandest deeds are that of great husbands, fathers, and countrymen. I look to these men for the shape of the world and aspire to equal them if only in depth and breadth of heart. So keep refining the word and defining it, I say. Such sustains hope. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: That's what I was saying Ess - it's hardly a rule to be expected to voluntarily place your life in jeopardy to save someone else. Nevertheless that's a different point from admitting that there would most likely be a certain degree of shame felt by most people if they were to fail to try and save someone even in the face of almost certain death for themselves. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "from admitting that there would most likely be a certain degree of shame felt by most people if they were to fail to try and save someone even in the face of almost certain death for themselves" A feeling which apparently would be misguided. . |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
That is not my sentiment. My disagreement is only treating those people or their choice as doing wrong or choosing a lesser "honor" for not choosing what most likely would have resulted in their death too. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: I am not sure I would say "basically" masculine. The word honor also goes further back to Latin honos whose s turned into an r followed by vowels (just as the s of was turned into an r in were ). That r-thing is called "rhotacism". I believe after most of the forms had the r, by imitating those forms, honor started being used alongside and instead of honos. The s is still present in honest(y). But the meanings in Latin are wide open and not at all gender-specific for the most part, from indicating reputation, dignity, office, to a more physical mark, charm, or ornament. The word virtue on the other hand has vir "male" built right into it, just as the word world from were "male" + eld "age". |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
El Cid[i] is one of my favorite films. The scene that Huan Yi mentions is one of the pivotal scenes in the early part of the movie. As a movie and as an expression of mid-century American, I don't think I can find a flaw with it. It's also a wonderful adaptation of the play by Racine, who highlights the relationship with the Sophia Loren character in the film, the lovely Chemaine. It's probably not such a great idea to confuse American mid twentieth century myth with tenth century Spanish events (I may have my dates wrong a bit — corrections willingly accepted here). If you want to look at the original text (which I can only do in translation; I suggest WS Merwin's, which is spectacular) you can see that the notion of honor is considerably more slippery than it might initially appear. The Cid was a very tricky guy with a constantly shifting web of allegiances, sometimes to Christian kings, sometimes to Islamic Kings. He switched sides with a good eye to personal advantage, and with a loose eye to loyalty to his original liege lords. The myths about these guys were, for the most part, more idealized and appealing than the realities. [i]The Poem of The Cid is an astonishing poem, brilliantly translated, and is as gripping as a good short novel. I think, though, that the notion of honor that Huan Yi may be talking about is the John Wayne sense of honor that so many of us grew up with, and have to deal with on a daily basis. I feel it has a lot to recommend it; though I don't necessarily follow it all the way, it's something that has to be come to grips with for a man — I think — in a world with changing gender roles. I'm also very interested in the Taoist sense of honor, and what that may be. And what effect does religion have on what honorable behavior is in a given time and place? Bob Kaven |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: Unfortunately often much backwardness. "For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it." (Luke 9:24) |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. British WWII veterans of Burma have remarked on the dramatics of Japanese soldiers in battle who facing death acted as if they were being watched and judged by their ancestors. It may be then that the concept of “honor” faded or failed over time since for a growing universal lack of faith in an audience. If life is the ultimate value, then one’s own life must be considered paramount since one can not truly know the values of any other, hence the willing risk of one’s own life even for any other’s could be argued as folly. . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Huan Yi raises a very interesting point here. I'm sure it's quite important, but exactly how it fits in, I don't know that I could say yet. That is that there is a connection between behavior — honorable behavior in this case — and the sense of performance on the other. Huan Yi uses the word "audience," and I don't want to suggest that my word "performance' is a decent substitute without Huan Yi's agreement on the matter. What I mean here is that any display of honorable behavior is meaningless without some sort of internal standard for the protagonist to compare it to, and — in the case of the Japanese Huan Yi speaks about — an appreciative external audience to savor the the details of the communication coded into the behavior. It becomes a sort of theater in itself. Societies have many forms of such coded communication, some of them exceedingly elaborate. Over times these fall into and out of favor. The language of courtly love and its conventions is one example. The language of flowers is a lesser example. The language of Tamil lyric poetry was likewise highly coded: A mention of one sort of landscape signified one sort of situation, mention of a given animal might call up a particular emotion, reference to time of day and a particular sort of weather could call up additional reference frames. Honor, in this sense, and the definition of behavior that is honorable may be nothing more than a special case of this sort of situation, though certainly one that has a great deal of meaning for me personally. While men and women may have large areas of overlap in what they consider honorable behavior, it may well be worth considering that the notion of what's considered honorable behavior may be different between genders, and that there may well be differences in the notion of honor not only between genders, but between genders in different cultures. A man can only open so many different cans a worms in a single posting, however. so I must content myself with this much and pray for survival. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: So now you are suggesting just because people put life first, they put everyone else's life last? I don't agree. The most important reason thousands would not give up their life in such a situation is because they care so much about the lives of others and still being there for them and to help them. Risking life for life where death is most likely is less compared to certainly being able to live on and serve the world in a much longer term way and in a way that may help use learning and teaching, strong morals and laws and to try to prevent both the attitudes that lead to such acts of violence and stronger ways to react when the violence is present. They may be their for those grieving to help them however they may. And still be their for their loved ones, their friends, their co-workers, etc. despite the great loss. The reason they care for their own life is because they care about other people that are important to their lives even more. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I could not love thee half so much Loved I not honour more. . . ? Roughly. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "Risking life for life where death is most likely is less compared to certainly being able to live on and serve the world in a much longer term way and in a way that may help use learning and teaching, strong morals and laws and to try to prevent both the attitudes that lead to such acts of violence and stronger ways to react when the violence is present" I can't find a response fit for mixed company . . . . |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ess: quote: Essorant, it's easy to take things out of context. A "losing of life" is necessary in all of our gains, though they be large deaths or incrementally small ones. A grain of corn must die before there can be a stalk of corn. This theme is found in nature through and through. If by "backwardness" you mean violence and warfare, you've just quoted the wrong person. Because, in context, Jesus was referring to, yes, the willingness to die (both metaphorically and literally) for a higher cause, but not at all about the willingness to kill. There is a difference. Have you ever read Les Miserables? Whenever you quote a person, you should consider the whole edifice of their teaching/philosophy, rather than making a text say what you want, whether positively or negatively. Though, you are right to suggest that people have twisted the sayings of Christ, for freedom to do all kinds of things, for all kinds of personal, political, and questionable ends. But you only quoted the scripture, making no distinction, and so you sounded as if you might be making the same interpretive mistake. later, Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephanos, No, I didn't mean that at all, Stephanos. I meant the way it seems to treat saving life as the opposite of saving life and dying the opposite of dying. It treats, in effect, choosing to save our life as if it is no more than choosing death, but that choosing death in the name of Christ is equivelent to choosing and saving life instead. When people start to treat choosing life as if it is choosing death and choosing death as if it is choosing life, that to me seems very backward! |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant, Could there be something beneath the overt paradox that you're not catching? It would, of course, be nonsense to confuse and conflate two opposites. But I don't think that's what we have here, though as with many parables, the surface has to be scratched a little deeper for the meaning. I think that Jesus was saying that often what seems like "life", primarily in a self-centered context, is really not life at all. He is juxtaposing a counterfeit with the real, for contrast. The reason for the paradox, is the simple acknowledgment that two superficially like things are not so easily differentiated and discerned. I think we get a similar meaning from the Proverb which says "There is a way which seems right to a man, but its ways end in death". You might say that the proverb steers clear of the paradox, and is therefore preferable; But there's a reason for the paradox of Jesus' words. If someone gets a bit dizzied from the reading, not being sure any longer about what is what, and which is which, I think the intended effect was produced. To be complacent about life is to lose what it means to be alive. Socrates, in concord with this, said that the unexamined life is not worth living. And nothing goads us into self-examination like someone calling into question things we never really have. To give you a literary example ... I mentioned Victor Hugo's "Les Miserables". Jean Valjean, the reformed ex-convict, when presented with a simpleton who was being tried in court for being Valjean himself ... had a choice. Either he would reassume his old identity to save another man, and so be really free. Or he would shun that identity to retain his own personal freedom and success, and so be bound by something more terrible than chains. He chose life through a difficult but virtuous deed rather than what appeared so obviously and alluringly as life, but really wasn't. Not all such choices in our lives which require a kind of dying, appear so dramatically or singularly as that in Les Mis. Our choices are rather smaller than not, and cumulative. Still, I think you understand what I'm getting at by mentioning Valjean. Stephen |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. This Lydian earth covers Amyntor, Phillip’s son, who often engaged his hands in iron battle: no painful disease led him to the House of Night, but he perished covering a comrade with his round shield. Anyte (c. 300 BCE) . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Whose translation, Huan Yi? That was a magnificent piece of poetry. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. From a book I read long ago . . . . |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephanos I understand your explanation. I just don't understand whence you get all that from the literal text itself. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ess, It's about context. Good exegesis means balancing the things Jesus said with other things he said. It just doesn't make sense to think he was conflating life and death. It does make sense to think that he is telling us that we often do. Stephen |
||
|
th1nktw1ce Junior Member
since 2009-07-13
Posts 24 |
Are we talking about honor as a virtue or honor holding to an uncompromising creed? _ Many have posted saying the meaning of honor has changed over time. I don't believe the definition has changed, but the number of things people choose to honor has. Honor an action. It's how honor is where and how honor is applied to a which areas of a person's life they are exhibited. And to go further it isn't honor itself that has changed but what a person is honoring. A person can honor his family by actions, using words, to uphold the legacy of his family, to change his family's legacy, to change his own legacy, to adhere a mission statement of the job he works at, or to keep with the morals he stands and religion he stands for). Personally, coming from the post confucian, post socrates, world of defined human virtue. I believe all men are born with the knowledge of virtue. And with a base of matured virtues, an adult acting in humble (not seeking honor) to service something or someone else for the better is honorable (the actions noticed by others). What is honorable is something those who live in virtuous honor don't think about. Character, integrity and courage all play large parts in true honor. That is what true honor is to me anyway. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mr. Thinktwice, quote: This may be why each of them must be taught their own society's individual notion of virtue as they grow up. Apparently the virtue they are born with has nothing to do with the virtue of any particular society. Gott mit uns and God save America, at least on the political scale, seem to have clashed at least a couple of times. The mores that stand behind each of them, and the cultures are also quite different. Nor do you get away with saying that you are post Confucian, or post Socratic so easily as well. The Confucian notion of honor is not simply personal, but very much societal. It comes to bear most heavily on the rulers and on their ability to do the right thing at the right time. It is said that one ruler avoided catastrophe for the empire by facing North. At this remove, that sounds silly. But at that time, the emperor didn't the the variety and power of the choices our emperors do today, did they? In Confucian thought, the change from dishonorable to honorable thought and behavior could be instant; a change in behavior could change a person's status from one to the other, and the nature of virtue and its practice should be ever in one's mind. To those of us who have made occasional idiots of ourselves, this point of view makes a certain amount of sense. A lifetime of virtue is absolutely no bulwark against impulse or self deception. As for Socrates, we get the story mostly through his pupil Plato. You might try reading The Trial of Socrates, a book that I've mention in these pages before, for an alternate view. I think you'll find that, at least in I.F. Stone's view, that this sort of thinking is very much with us still. Even if you disagree, I think you'll find that a large part of educational method is based on "The Socratic Method." You may dislike it, but it's part of your bones. Yours, Bob Kaven |
||
|
GBride Senior Member
since 2009-07-02
Posts 538 |
There is much to think about here that has merit. I remember a saying of my friend when I was in the Army. "Now, take it easy, lad. The time to be a hero is when the battle is orer and done and all the brave men safely buried in their graves God rest um." The victor writes the history and,therein, justifys his cause. I do not have the education, no doubt, that the rest of you have. Bravery, in my opinion, has caused many people to die early in their years,and the result has been no better that the one its replaced. For a long time now I have believed that "Honer" is concept of usless and impotant old men. It doesn't exist outside of retoric. The powerful use it as a means to manipulate the powerless into doings things that they will not do themselves. But I have to admit that I do attend the momorial services here each year on memorial day to "honer" those have given their share. So I must believe in "honer" at some level. I will reread these comments to see if I can learn more. [This message has been edited by GBride (10-19-2009 10:01 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Essorant, John's statement of course would be situational. He's not saying that valuing one's own life (whether or the sake of others or not) is bad, but that in a situtation which requires death for the sake of others, to choose to preserve one's own life then is less honorable. There are/ have been situations where there would be no honorable way to save one's skin, in light of the demands of the situation ... and many who have recognized this truth. For you to deny it is to homogenize all of life into peace-time, or crisis-free ethics. In reality all of life hasn't fit this pattern that we are now enjoying. Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Thank you, GBride. It seems you're as solid as anybody here, and as honest, and perhaps more thoughtful than many of us. I enjoyed what you had to say. Bob Kaven |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephanos I agree, for giving up life for another's life is still putting life first. That is what I believe in. What I don't believe in is giving up life for honor or religion though. Honor and religion are very important to life, but are never more important than life itself. If honour and religion are a straight line, I will always still admire stepping out of that straight line to save life. Whether marching in a band or in an army, even stepping out of line to avoid a cricket one sees in front of his foot will always be more noble to me than carelessly killing the cricket. Even such a small life is greater than sticking to that straight line of "honor" "religion" "normalness", "appearances" etc. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
No different Ess. Those who die for their faith in God (I'm not speaking of those who erroneously die in the process of killing for God) are dying for life too ... for the life of those who killed them, and the life of others who see them. If I were to disown and deny Christ because of a threat (which is what many aggressors have demanded of Christian martyrs), I would really be saying to others that it doesn't matter ... that it isn't at all real, which is to say that death itself is absolute. Therefore Christians should believe that it would be better to die than to leave everyone the impression that God and Christ are disposable, and not at all deserving of at least the human kind of honor you attach to others, especially if believing so means to forfeit eternal life. So your wholly negative view about dying for religion only stands if the religions are equally false and languid ... only social practices that claim to be something more. To believe that human life is practically more important than God, is to not believe that human fulfillment can only be had in God ... which is to disbelieve the foundation of religion. I respect your right to believe so, but supposing Christianity were true on its own terms (not just the belief that it is as culturally and artistically relevant as anything else) you can easily see why a Christian should distrust any statement which says loyalty to one's own life is more important than loyalty to God and Christ. Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Not easy to talk about what is required when you are asked to give up your religion or your life, perhaps the root of many christian notions of martyrdom. At least one threat of Jewish commentary on the matter suggests that such a demand is illegitimate and unenforceable, and that the obligation for the faithful person is to agree to change, to go along with the change as long as necessary and to get away to a place where it's possible once again to practice one's religion freely. The question this raises in my mind is what does this say about those who place others in such a life threatening position? Questions of honor raise themselves from all positions. The definitions of honor seem to become fairly slippery if they are not examined from within each specific cultural context. It seems there is little cross cultural sympathy available to share. Moslems don't like the passivity of Christian martyrdom, Christians don't like the aggression of Moslem martyrdom, and the Jews don't like the whole notion of being martyred at all. In fact they get accused of being martyred badly. both inside their own religion, and from without, as though there was some bureau of martyrdom standards and practices in Geneva that had the Golden martyrdom under lock and key in a vault for comparison and Jewish Martyrdom somehow fell short as being too passive or not fighting back enough or something. It'd be darkly humorous if it wasn't so grim. Now that I think about it, it's probably both at the same time. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bob, The healthiest views of Martyrdom within Christian history have been that Martyrdom is an evil thing, though if it must be in order to avoid treachery shame or faithlessness, it is not devoid of purpose, honor, or ultimate reward. An evil thing out of which good may come. If Jews don't like to be martyred at all that probably goes for the rest, as far as likes are concerned ... seems to be a fairly universal human trait not to relish dying. Even Jesus prayed "Let this cup pass ..." Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephanos quote: I meant such a death that would actually save someone's present life, Stephanos. If I changed bodies with someone about to die, and therefore I died in his body instead of him and he lived on in my body, my death would save someone's life. But if I died to keep my religion, it wouldn't save anyone's life and most likely wouldn't help anyone either. That is a great difference. If you only had two choices right now, to live as a Muslim, or die, surely you wouldn't choose death? [This message has been edited by Essorant (10-21-2009 12:45 AM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ess, I can't say what I would or wouldn't do under extreme duress or Temptation. Even Peter thought he would be willing to die with Christ, but was informed that he would deny him in the wee hours of the morning. I know what would be right to do, and that would be never to renounce my faith in Christ to save my own skin. The way in which you juxtaposed "present life" only shows that you don't take "eternal life" seriously ... else why place the importance of present temporal life over the life-to-come? Not that Christianity is only and all about post-mortem existence. But if what the Bible says about it all is true, then it makes sense to look at things with a larger-perspective, as important or wonderful as this "hands-breadth" of a life, may seem. Again I respect you ... but I am trying to show that our disagreement flows from wholly different premises, or you wouldn't use the word "actually" where I would use the word "merely". The history of Christian martyrdom has held testimonies of many who were greatly encouraged by people who didn't hold their lives too dear to speak and hold to the truth of the Gospel. To say that no one is really helped by such examples, is simply to say you don't believe the Christian Gospel. To suggest that I should be willing to be a Muslim to save my life, is to say that all religions are equally valid or invalid in spite of their fundamental contradictions regarding who God is, amounting to religious relativism, which trivializes religion altogether. We're not in disagreement about whether life should be preserved when it may not involve treachery and denial to do so. Life here is very dear. Bunyan left his family for 12 years, with bitter tears, to enter a jail where "The Pilgrim's Progress" was written. I say these things not at all to disparage you, but to clarify. We're like two people who keep getting a different sum, adding a common amount to very different coins we already hold. Stephen [This message has been edited by Stephanos (10-21-2009 11:33 PM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephanos, quote: But why do you put serving religion above serving life as being what is right? Taken to an extreme, isn't that what also inspires people to treat other people's lives as inferior to their religion, that if others offend or act against their religion, their life should be acted against because the religion is more important? How do we save and defend human life better if we put religion above it? quote: We may eternalize anything in an imaginary future Stephanos, and try to compare that imaginary "eternal" to the present, which thereby makes the present look inferior. But that eternal future is still just an imagination until it actually happens. Should I spend more of my limited money of the present because I hope to have an unlimited supply in the future? Isn't this enough to explain why the the present life deserves to be put first? quote: You mean the ilk book that says the first woman was formed from a rib and whose genealogies suggest the Earth is only 6000 years old? That is a big "if" Stephanos quote: That is somewhat true, but only because of the context. Religion in general to me is rather trivial in comparison to saving life. People are struggling among violence, poverty, starvation, etc. No such stipulation is in living as a Muslim instead of a Christian. And the "as" is just that: It doesn't mean you may do it perfectly, especially after being a Christian. But in this "if" all you were to do is present yourself as a Muslim to the world, then you could live your life, see your family and friends, still be a nurse and do everything the same, except presenting yourself as Muslim would be incorporated. I wouldn't want anyone to be cornered into that, but if he were, it is far from being as harsh as many other conditions people are cornered into. I think I would certainly be willing to live under any religion if it meant survival. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant: quote: If you wanted to take that logic all the way, Essorant, we should say that religion shouldn't be more important than any expression of human life ... which would lead to the rather obvious question of why have religion at all? The principle that God is more important than any human life, is a right principle, especially if God is source of human life, and the hope of its ultimate justification and restoration. To bring up bad examples of killing people in the name of religion, doesn't cast doubt on that principle, but only upon the Theology of any particular religion that practices violence in the way you mentioned. The Character of God is very important, and the question of whether human life is important to God is very important. Remember that I am saying that Martyrdom is when the murderous deed (the evil) is on the side of the perpetrator, not the confessor of faith. That's a significant difference that you're not acknowledging. I know you would want to suggest that it might be better to deny one's faith to save one's life, for yourself and others ... But you are still not taking seriously the life-to-come, and what effect this denial might have on those observing. (So Christians believe human life is better served by being faithful to God, and not denying him in the face of death- This does not mean to cast one's life away carelessly) And also, with those who are murderous, there is no guarantee that one's "life" will be spared at the denial anyway, or that the circumstances of that life will be preferrable to an honorable death. Since many have recognized this, they've gone ahead and done the right thing. Let me ask you a question. If someone promised to let you live only if you would spit on your mother and insult her with unheard of expletives, would you do it? How about assault her, or rape her? Could you even be sure they would follow through with their promise? My point is, you draw a line too, which could be questioned just as much as the line drawn by Christian Martyrs ... since anything within one's life can be deemed less important than life itself. However I don't think most people deem sheer existence as the most important thing. In other words, there are things worse than dying. quote: Two points: 1) By calling it "imaginary" you are simply telling me you don't believe it. Which accounts for our difference. If you knew it were true, beyond doubt, would you feel the same way? 2) If an "eternal future" is imaginary until it actually happens, so is any future that hasn't happned, including the future of the lives you say should count more than religion. Using this standard does violence to your own argument as well. quote: The biggest "If" I see now, has to do with your own point. I thought a lover of literature might be able to appreciate the power of parable, pathos, and metaphor to convey historical and spiritual truth, especially if one understands something of the characteristics of Ancient-Near-East writings. Genealogies were seledom, if ever, comprehensive. There's certainly exegetical room in the text to view the Universe and Earth as much older than 6000 years. But instead you are acting as if Genesis should be read like a Western contemporary analytical account of chronology ... not realizing perhaps that an anachronism like yours is the only reason for rejecting it with any seriousness. quote: You're only reiterating what I said about your religious relativism trivializing religion altogether. For you "religion" is a great generality, and does not in any way transcend or over-arch human existence. It's the difference between "God as Art" and "God as Creator". It's the difference that gives rise to the different sum we keep getting. From now on, it seems we're in repetition mode. Wouldn't you agree with my last statement? Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Stephen, It's good to hear you step away clearly from a literal interpretation of the Bible, even if you're speaking of the genealogies being incomplete. I was interested in the two points that you raised, which I'll quote below for reference. It's not that I agree or disagree with them, it's simply that I have thoughts about them that your thoughts brought up that I'd like to share and hear your comments on, or Essorant's, or those of anybody's who's feeling in the mood. quote: I have been in situations before where the answers that I thought I had suddenly proved to be wrong for me. When I was younger, I thought that it was everybody's right to make their own decision about living or dying. If somebody wanted to die, you had no right in the world to stand in their way. Philosophically, by the way, I still think this is a good position. Unfortunately, when confronted with a situation where it was time to put up or shut up — to bring in a supply of pills or a razor blade for somebody who wanted to die, I simply couldn't do it. I had the whole philosophical position worked out in my head, but I simply couldn't do it. Sorry. I hadn't know that until the moment showed up. When it was there, all my well worked out pieces of philosophy simply vanished in a sudden new understanding about who I was. I hadn't known before, afterward I did. Who I was was actually somewhat at odds with my principles, but I found that I couldn't make things budge on either side. I still believe that people have their right to make their own decisions, and I still find myself unwilling to help them do it. Emotionally, I think it's wrong. Who knew? You can do a lot of imagining yourself into the future. You can be very clear about your principles. What you actually are needs to be revealed to you, I think. I don't say this is bad or good. I don't say this is a relative statement, because I don't think it is. I can't say it's that way for everybody, but I know it's that way for some people, and that I'm one of them. I don't think bad or good applies to everything, and this is one of those things where the overlap may be accidental — sometimes it counts as bad or good, and sometimes, eh!, who cares? But I wanted to share this, and I was curious about your reactions, because this sort of certainty about what one is to do or should do or can do seems to me to be almost funny, as though you can really predict yourself as completely as all that. The example of St. Peter you mentioned earlier comes to mind. That was simply Saint Peter acting like a human being, surprising himself with his humanity, as though he were supposed to be something other than human and to magically become ideal. What a wonderful thought, I suppose, and yet a thought that is so ruthless with one's self. I don't think Jesus was surprised at find this sort of humanity, I think he saw it in himself as well. All my best, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephanos quote: But why would I treat other expressions differently? A picture of a beautiful woman is just as much not the beautiful woman as a religious belief about life is not life. Surely you wouldn't say the picture of the woman is more important than the woman herself? Likewise the religious expression is not more important than life itself. Both are equally as less than what they represent as they are representations instead of what they actually represent. quote: Remember that you are talking about a "principle" or belief. Therefore it is not actually God himself, just as the picture of the beautiful woman and the religious expression of life are not what they represent. It an artistic expression of someone or something, or a confusion, but not the actual being or thing itself. It is inferior to beings and life because it is just a representation or an expression not the being or life itself. quote: When I was at work the other day I was thinking about that and began to rue taking my arguments and statements a bit too far. Indeed I have a line as well. I wouldn't do and adopt anything just for survival. I somewhat lost focus bringing up the aspect of what one may be willing to adopt instead of something he is willing to give up. One specification doesn't necessary demand the other. The main point is about the willingness to give up an ideal or religion for survival, not the willingness not to be able to choose what you will do without your religion or what you will have instead of it. Of course we have lines about what we would be willing to do. But I am pointing out that putting the line at giving up religion itself is an extreme in the other direction For not being a Christian, or Muslim, etc, is not something horrible. The choice to give up being Christian, Muslim, etc to save your life or someone else's from death, would be just as honourable as many other kinds of sacrafices one may make to save life. Therefore I would argue there is much more by which it would be right than wrong. quote: I do believe in it so far as I believe it is imaginary. But there isn't anything to suggest it is otherwise. The transientness of the things is much more convincing. Generally things eventually change and move on. Therefore, it doesn't seem very likely that any kind of "eternal life" is coming our way. Unless you consider being "recycled" into different compounds in the universe, as "eternal life". But as far as being able to keep our soul, personalities, etc. I can't see any likelihood. All I can grant is that it is "imaginary" and may be "possible", but not probable by anything that life itself suggests. quote: But I am not talking about a life that is not already known and had. This present life is already known and had. It is not a question that it is the kind of life one has. But the eternal life is a question. And there is nothing to make it seem more likely that that is what the future shall have instead of the transient kind of life the present has. All you are going by is the bible. But how well do lifeforms themselves and life-conditions suggest that "eternal life" shall be coming in the future? quote: Don't you think that further confirms why the bible ought not be taken so seriously? If one doesn't know exactly what it is referring to, the "days" referred to are not actually "days", the amount of years referred to are not actually "years", Eve was not actually a woman, Adam was not actually a man, the flood was not actually a flood, etc, etc, but these representations of some misty profundities, why should he be willing to take it seriously as a reference (instead of predominately art), let alone give up his life for something it speaks about as "eternal life"? quote: But you are avoiding the context. If it weren't up against life, then your point would stand for many things. Poetry is very important to me too. But it would be ridiculous to try to say it is more important than life or that it is not worth giving up if giving it up meant saving life. I don't think there is much difference between "God as Art" and "God as Creator" unless you give evidence to distinguish one from the other. Without giving evidence "God as Creator" refers to things we only learn from art and religious texts just as much as "God as Art". quote: Indeed. Nothing wrong with repetition. Do lovers get tired of repeating love? [This message has been edited by Essorant (10-26-2009 04:41 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant: quote: The very obvious thing about this to me, is that you are strictly defining religion as idea or principle only (another simple way of saying you don't believe it). A denial of one's faith in God is different than denying a principle, if God lives. The fact that religion is "about" God, is no different than the fact that what you are saying is only "about" people. Yes, I understand that the nature of God is quite different than the nature of human beings. But saying that there cannot be correspondence (similar to the way in which your own "ideas" here have correspondence) is nothing more than to say that you don't believe it. quote: And so are you. Would it be valid for me to say that since you are only speaking of ideas about people, that your ideas are invalid? Of course not. I recognize the possibility of correspondence. The fact that you treat religion differently in this regard (even though the correspondence may be quite different), is simply to say you don't believe it. quote: There is no inherent argument that would suggest that your own ideas about people correspond any more than someone's ideas about God. Just as your words and ideas here point to human lives, religious ideas (which are true ones) point to God. quote: But accounting for the reality of Christ and God, it would be a horrible thing for a Christian to deny his faith and turn away. If one believes that God has human lives in his keeping (their ultimate vindication and redemption) then human temporal life cannot be ultimate, though important. quote: Isn't it human life that is utterly transient in your view? If so, your own argument about the value of humanity fails to be established. What you call "transient", as far as Christianity is concerned, I would say is borne by sufficient evidence. We don't have to make this an evidential discussion about Christianity. But I did want to point out that your own view of humanity as essentially material, impersonal, and ephemeral, poses quite a challenge to your own (Christian if I might dare) views of human dignity and morals. You said "I do believe in it as far as I believe it is imaginary" ... which could have been simply stated as "I don't believe" . But you've already communicated that to me many times over. But in this instance, I asked whether you would feel the same way if you knew it were true. I certainly would feel as you (or something similar perhaps) If I believed not. Again, this accounts for our very different answers on the matter. quote: You missed my point Essorant. I am not questioning your view of present life. I am saying that in proposing that someone ditch their faith in God to "save" a life, you are unavoidably concerning yourself with the future too ... not the present. Your desire is that they WILL continue to live in the future. Therefore your rejection of being concerned about Eternal life, because it deals with the future, is groundless for this reason. quote: Well we have the resurrection of Jesus Christ, from a historical perspective. And though you would quickly deny it, perusing some historical works like N.T. Wright's "The Resurrection of the Son of God" might suggest to you that believing something else happened than what was written in the Gospels, (swoon theory, stolen body, total fabrication ...) is difficult to maintain in any historical sense. Then we do have anthropology, and the fact the great majority of the human race has believed in some kind of higher powers, and in life beyond death. Is it more reasonable to think them all deluded, or to think that a hunger points to food? And we have the sheer philosophical fact that those who take naturalistic materialism (as a worldview) seriously, have a hard time justifying why there should be any obligatory honor or dignity about human life at all ... beyond a kind of "art" or preferential statement. At least the religious answer says there is a reason for this beyond a blind march of molecules and genes. I guess our respective views on whether there is "evidence" depends on how we each choose to interpret the data, and on which presuppositions by which we frame the question itself. quote: Not really. I see no reason why poetry cannot be mixed with prose. The thing is to recognize which is which. Difficult in some cases? Perhaps. But mostly not that difficult. In a passage which says that God created light on the "first day", and the stars and heavenly bodies on the "fourth day", one may infer that a creative description of the indescribable is going on. The main purpose (it seems) is to portray the sheer fact and wonder of God's Creation. Whether one goes on to believe Adam was a literal man, or an archetypal representation of every man, matters little as long as one accepts that something actually happened to make humanity "fall" into sinful choices, away from God, and that God still pursues this severed relationship in profound ways. When we come to the more prosaic historical narratives of the Bible, we don't encounter as much of a difficulty in differentiating the literal from the literary. And by the time we get to the New Testament Gospels we have something that is obviously narrative reportage, and not allegory. Concerning those who would try to mythologize the Gospels C.S. Lewis wrote the following: "If he tells me that something in a Gospel is legend or romance, I want to know how many legends and romances he has read, how well his palate is trained in detecting them by the flavour; not how many years he has spent on that Gospel...I have been reading poems, romances, vision-literature, legends, myths all my life. I know what they are like. I know that not one of them is like this. Of this text there are only two possible views. Either this is reportage -- though it may no doubt contain errors -- pretty close up to the facts; nearly as close as Boswell. Or else, some unknown writer in the second century, without known predecessors or successors, suddenly anticipated the whole technique of modern, novelistic, realistic narrative. If it is untrue, it must be narrative of that kind. The reader who doesn't see this has simply not learned to read." In conclusion, why would any imaginative and intelligent person (which I believe you are Essorant) want to pedantically suggest that the Bible should be all of one-kind of writing, or to suggest that it shouldn't be trusted or taken seriously because it isn't? Stephen [This message has been edited by Stephanos (10-26-2009 09:08 PM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephanos, quote: But I didn't do that Stephanos. I said that religious belief is an expression of life (which may or may not include God), just as the picture of the beautiful woman is a picture of the woman (not the woman herself). Therefore I am not trying to say religion is confined to being less important than life for being more about God than many other expressions. I am only saying it is less important because it is not God and it is not life itself. It is a "picture" of life and God and therefore it is inferior to God and life. Just as the picture of the woman is inferior to the woman. The point of emphasizing that is to show you how little giving up a religion is compared to this present life and saving life. Your belief is not God, and it is not your life. And you nor others are dependant on it in order to live. It is a belief, just as a cellphone is a cellphone, not the person being talked to through it, nor their life nor your life, even though it helps communication in life. If you give it up, you still have a world full of room for living and believing. quote: I don't think I am treating religion differently, Stephanos. I am just pointing out that the belief being about God doesn't make the belief more important than life itself. quote: But there are, Stephanos. When I say "present life" or "humans" people have evidence beyond art and books that they may find. But when you say "God", they don't. All they have are religious texts, art, and imagination. People send us to this or that book to find out what is "true" about God because there is no certain objective evidence they may give. Generally we may find many that live up to "alive" and "human", but not many that live up to the description of "male omniscient omnipotent God"! quote: Yes I believe I would, but it is impossible to know that. For the future is never already "there" by which we know of it "there", because it is always presently "here" as the present. The reason you can refer to the future is because your mind can take a picture of the present, and then warp that picture with your imagination into something you believe the present will eventually be that you call "future" But that is still imagination, not knowledge. When it is based reasonably on evidence it may sometimes be used helpfully. But when it is not it is a great exaggeration, which is not reasonably supported by the process of things we see in the present. No process of life as it is now gives me any reason to believe I, you, or anyone else will eventually have "eternal life" . People hope for a life free from death because they want it, not because nature suggests they can have it. quote: No doubt the "future", which is also imagination, is always involved. But the great difference here is that the present life is already "here" and had. It not an imaginary "eternal" life that someone doesn't have and (if Nature has anything to say about it) probably won't ever have. I am not rejecting "eternal life" because it is future/imaginary/belief, but because there is nothing in nature to give it any likelihood. It is only a hope, but a hope against everything that nature seems to show about life. quote: What you bring forth though are still things that are warped by art and myth. The evidence needs to be beyond literary texts and beliefs. It needs to be in lifeforms themselves. Every living thing we see eventually dies. That is confirmed over and over again by nature. If the only exception are religious texts and beliefs people have/had, then doesn't that confirm just that: That it is the art of those books and beliefs, contrary to the nature of life itself? quote: I am not suggesting it shouldn't be taken seriously as a great artwork, with historical narrative. But in speaking of distant things, especially the future and being true about an "eternal life", it is the same as I said earlier: a "picture" of the present in the mind warped by belief and imagination and then called the "future". Without any evidence in Nature itself that supports eternal life, all it can be is just that: an imagination that doesn't accord with nature. There is nothing inherently wrong that. For imagination and art it is rather "natural" to contradict nature in many ways we represent things. But don't you think treating it as fact and giving up one's life would be taking it to an unreasonable extreme? [This message has been edited by Essorant (10-27-2009 05:53 PM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
I'm curious, Essorant. What would you do if someone was going to kill you unless you willingly gave up food and water? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Ron I would certainly say that I would give up food and water. If a man lacks food and water, he may still live a while without them and in that while still at least have a slightest chance of possibily escaping or someone saving him from the threat. But I don't think that shares much in common with giving up a religion. If one gives up a religion, he is not in such danger. He doesn't need a particular religion (such as Christianity) in order to live. But if he gives up his life he can neither live or practice any religion. He is dead. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Ron, Not the same thing. That's the problem with these theoretical arguments, they become so theoretical they lose sight of the reality that undergirds them. The reality is that one can only give up the appearance of the practice of one's faith, and that is almost always in the end not enough. Forced conversion, if one looks at the experience of, say, the Spanish inquisition, the original converso is frequently followed by accusations of insincerity, further sanctions and expulsion or death. It simply isn't enough. The folks demanding the conversion, Protestant, Islamic or Catholic are always looking for tell-tale signs that the conversion wasn't real. Hey, often enough it wasn't. What did they expect in the first place? The demand for conversion gets the appearance of conversion. The threat of death that you spoke of above is not to be instituted at the cost of giving up food and water, but at the cost of not allowing fools to see you eat and drink. It may be a risky proposition, but it is clearly a better option than being burnt at the stake. Almost always you will, for example, face likely uprooting and the need to flee, if you are lucky enough to be able to do so, should you wish to practice your faith. Almost certainly, you and your children will face the life-long distrust of your neighbors, if you are lucky enough to survive. Since we are a literary crew, there is a turn in Shakespeare criticism which looks at the Shakespeare family as one that needed to adapt to just these sets of pressures through the last half of the 16th century. Peter Ackroyd, the fine English novelist and biographer has done a fascinating biography from this point of view. It is called, oddly enough, Shakespeare: The Biography. It is almost a case study for how this sort of thing can work out when it does work out at its most fortunate, with the various pieces of misfortune scattered about it. It's also extremely entertaining. My best, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: And if you were convinced there was absolutely no possibility of escape, Ess? The instant you said you would forego food and water, your promise became your reality? quote: It is exactly the same thing, Bob. For a Christian. Essorant believes he will die without food and water. He has no actual proof of that, just an abiding faith it will be so. The only real difference I see is that Ess admits he would be willing to lie, in vain hope his lie would buy him time to escape. The Christian has no such option. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Ron, The reference I gave above had to do with how one Christian country dealt with others in this matter, basically England versus a large part of Europe. The same sort of thing could be seen during the reformation and counter-reformation across the continent, sometimes within countries, as in the case of England itself, sometimes between principalities. The hundred years war had religious overtones, didn't it? That a Christian wouldn't feel Christianity as necessary as food and water, or even more necessary, is not what I'm suggesting. What I'm saying is that there is the question of the theoretical discussion, in which the discussion gets more and more abstract, and the questions of faith come more to the fore. Then there is a discussion of what's actually happened when situations like this have come up, not so theoretical and at times occasionally a bit at odds with the theoretical discussions. Both Catholic and Protestant can feel that their faith is more essential than food or drink to them, and both have without turning a hair made demands that the other convert of die with no particular awareness of the irony of the demand. There were martyrs on both sides. I would also like to point out to you that there were loads of folks who concealed their religious beliefs or went through forced and phony conversions on both sides. One of the reasons that I recommended the Ackroyd book was that he was pretty good about talking about this aspect of English history. It may well be that Shakespeare himself was one of the more or less secret Catholics of the time, and that more certainly his father was. My sense is that this isn't the only case available. Moses Maimonides has written about the pragmatics of dealing with forced conversion; being in a situation where he'd had to deal with pressures from Moslems in that direction when he was living in Spain in the 12th century, he'd had experience with the matter. One of the candidates for messiah that periodically arises among the Jews became a forced convert to Islam in the 16th or 17th century. Conversion of the heathen was, of course, one of the objectives of the crusades, along with the conquest of Jerusalem. The point being, I suppose, that Christians are not the only ones who feel that their religion is more important than meat or drink to them. Even Atheists on occasion have been known to say so, being, I suppose, willing to join those willing to die for their faith — a modest irony, if true. If true, I suspect, there may well be many more willing to die for their faiths than actually to live by them, which seems to be a more arduous and detailed project anyway. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ess: quote: No, religious ideas are not God himself, only about him. That's the nature of all of our ideas and words, even yours. What you are denying is the possibility of correspondence when it comes to religious ideas, which is saying that you don't believe them. I already knew that. quote: But pictures may be accurate or not. Jesus said the following: "whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven" (Matthew 10:33, NIV). He is someone who claimed a very unique relationship with the Divine, even implying that he was God, with accompanying words and actions ... someone larger than (more important than) life. quote: Unless there may be correspondence. Unless "giving up a religion" would involve denying God, who is the author and source of all life. You say it doesn't matter. Jesus says it does. quote: Jesus said, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God." On a subject upon which you've confessed no knowledge (or much harder to defend, the self-refuting Theology of universal agnosticism which says no one CAN have knowledge of God), why wouldn't it be reasonable to believe Jesus' words about this? Countless have expressed a futility of life, without the divine. Countless have expressed a fulfillment, with God, not possible otherwise. Countless others have expressed the reality of eternal bliss, and perdition. Death bed experiences abound where there is either a palpable peace or infernal torment and perception of a spiritual world. There's evidence enough. It's our own choice to interpret this how we will. quote: The closer analogy would not be to give up the cell phone, but to insult or continually hang up on the person at the other end. So, you never answered my question of whether you would spit on your mother and barrage her with unheard of expletives, in order to secure an insecure escape, from someone making the demand? quote: But the belief says that God is more important than life itself ... so, if you are allowing that religious beliefs may also correspond to truth, how could the belief be less important than human temporal life? For the Christian, such actions are not based upon the belief as theory, but that to which the belief corresponds to. quote: And when I say "eternal life" or "God" people have evidence beyond art and books that they may find. quote: You're not so naive to imagine that your own views of human dignity and value (the moral crux of your argument in the first place) have any objective evidence, are you? You are confusing existence with an ethical value that you accept, just as much by faith as a believer accepts God. That's not to say it's wrong; It isn't. But I am pointing out to you that the morals and values upon which your argument hinges, are impossible to support via "proofs" ... and particularly if you consider the problem of morality and epistemology in a closed, wholly-material universe, that excludes a transcendent personal God whose character is the source of moral law. So, what is the "proof" and "objective" evidence that we should honor someone else's life ... or even that life is important? quote: Though you grossly oversimply by saying male, doubtlessly for the purpose of discrediting (for in scripture God created humanity, male and female, in his image), you're still right, not many, just one. quote: Impossible is a strong word. What objective proof and evidence do you have that it "impossible" to know something of God? It seems that you, at least, know something of his unyielding transcendence. Didn't know you were such a Theologian. quote: I can see that the pervasive expression of this (however crude or variable) in human history, is a clue (among other evidences) to what I have already taken on authority from Christ who was raised from the dead. But given your world-view, you would have a hard time suggesting that human dignity and value (upon which your argument turns) is anything more than imagination, simply by pointing out that people want it. So, What is your objective factual argument for human honor and dignity, that doesn't depend upon the fact that the majority of people have desired it? quote: But in your view-of-things, you can't prove with objectivity that human worth and dignity is already "here and had", can you? And if sheer darwinian nature has anything to say about, probably won't ever have. Tell me, if nature has nothing to say about eternal life, why did Jesus use it so often to illustrate Eternal Life, appealing to what people knew of nature? "I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds." John 12:24 Why, as C.S. Lewis observed about paganism, did the theme of dying and rising gods occur over and over, in their nature religions which revolved around observing agricultural realities year after year after year? Because God's Heavenly truth casts many shadows into the world. You may not see things the same way, but to say that "nothing in nature" suggests eternal life, is a very turgid argument, if we consider nature as a whole, rather than only its destructive elements. quote: Anything and everything you believe about the past, is "warped by art and myth". What you are really referring to is human subjectivity. And yet, as I've already pointed out, your own views of human dignity and honor are "warped" by subjectivity. It is an "ought", and we cannot prove it by sheer human existence. I do understand that when it comes to something incredible, it is harder to take human testimony. However, something extraordinary doesn't automatically rule out genuine reportage. If you believe we evolved from hydrogen gas, without intelligent help, and without even a claim of eyewitnesses, you believe in wonders quite beyond what I am capable of believing. quote: Only if I accepted that nature says nothing, metaphorically or otherwise, about eternal life. Nature is not conclusive, of course, on these things. But neither is it conclusive of your own ideas, including those about human dignity and honor ... which we both accept as true. In a religion which states that love, commitment, and devotion (which always involve human ambiguity and uncertainty) are more important sometimes than unassailable objectivity which would amount to "force", the inconclusivity of nature on these questions are understandable. They were meant only to be suggestive, for those open to the suggestions. But sheer objectivity is reserved for no one this side of eternity. Of that I'm convinced. Stephen |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bob, Are we speaking of dying for one's faith or killing for it? It seems you have mentioned the latter much more, which can only be called a perversion of Christian practice, while the former is more harmonious with the spirit of the New Testament. quote: It is at least worthy of consideration to ask whether one who doesn't live for his or her faith, would be ever be able to die for it ... and whether one who admits no virtue in ever dying for it, could ever really live for it. I think the two, as imperfect as they may be in our race, may tend to go hand in hand. Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Stephen, I actually spent very little time talking about killing for one's faith, though, when you think of it, every martyrdom is more or less matched by a demand for that martyrdom by somebody who would give you a solid disagreement about the necessity of that request. Wouldn't they? Am I to get a bad rap from you simply because I point that out? I would suggest that your quarrel isn't with me, but with reality, which seems to work this way, at least sometimes. Your philosophical explanations are good ones, and I often find myself in agreement with them, but they do have to deal not only with the reasoning for things, but with the actual reality of things itself. Ding an sich, suchness or whatever you'd like to call it. quote: I think what you have here is a marvelous piece of rhetoric, with wonderful balance and reversal. In fact, it seems somewhat simpler to die for one's faith than to live for it. First, you often aren't given a choice; it is made for you. Second, it is often a yes or no decision, and often needs only be made once. If you decide to live for your faith, then the decisions are often not yes or no decisions, but more complex decisions about how to put principle that is imperfectly understood into action that can only be imperfectly expressed. Third, if you decide to live for your faith, you must commit yourself to a constant process of coming to grips with your relationship with your faith and with the people in it and the people outside of it in a way that must incorporate yours evolving (there's that word again) understanding of yourself, your religion, other people and your God. Dying for your faith is a decision to end that struggle without having traveled as far along that path as otherwise you might have found some way to do. As for somebody who can admit no virtue in dying for a faith for a faith could ever really live for it, I would suggest to you that this is probably not a condition that Jesus would impose. Certainly it's not one he imposed on Saint Peter, who chose to deny that he knew Jesus three times in the course of that one special Passover. Having accepted such a situation from a Saint and an apostle, and having granted forgiveness to those who believe, I doubt that Jesus would be as judgmental as rhetoric appears to push you into being in this case. Above all, Jesus seems to have been a mensch. No pushover, mind you, but a mensch anyway. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bob: quote: Suchness? I like that word. You've given me a new one to toss around. Essorant would be proud.  To answer you ... I don't deny for a moment the reality of things, ie that people use religion as a justification of killing. But those who are killed in the process of waging war, aren't martyrs of a Christian kind. And for me, that's what martyrdom is, a passive dying which was not sought or glorified for its own sake, for an active faith. quote: You're right that it is simpler by virtue of being a mere moment relative to a life-time of decisions and struggles. But that doesn't make it easier, judging from the number of people who, truth be told, would fold and say or do most anything to save their life. What would I do? I don't know. I know what I would hope to do, or not to do under such unusual circumstances. In the meanwhile, I'll be busy trying the other impossible task of living my faith, that you rightly draw attention to. I still think these two things relate to each other in significant and suggestive ways. quote: You make it sound as if martyrs wanted to die. While I'm not denying there have been such examples of morbid fanaticism, the most common example of faithful dying is the man who feels he has no live option saving disgrace apostasy and treachery. Remember I have never put martyrdom over and against living one's faith day to day. Faith in God presents a great challenge in both living and dying, whatever the circumstances. quote: Jesus merciful? Yes. But mercy without real failure is not mercy, but sanction or indifference. Using Jesus' example of forgiveness to suggest that the standard was unrealistic, too high, and probably not even desired of Jesus for his followers, is to miss some pretty significant narrative moments. Should we overlook the sad but loving reproof involved with Jesus' fortelling Peter's denial at the Passover meal, the wistful catching of Peter's eye in the courtyard of his arrest? Or what of Peter's own disgrace at being overcome by the interrogation of a young girl by the fire, and his solitary bitter weeping? There are also references to a great transformative work being done in the hearts of all the disciple's whose faiths were small, not least of which is a reference by Jesus to the manner in which Peter would someday die in Martyrdom himself. The pathos of all of this, taken together with the mercy and forbearance of Jesus, only augments his compassion. It certainly doesn't diminish the standard, or "condition" of being faithful even unto death. And don't worry Bob, I haven't proven such an ability myself, so I'm certainly not ready to say "anathema" to anyone. Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Stephen, My-athema hath alwayth been a big problem for me, too... Putting people in harm's way for the sake of converting the pagan, as in the crusades, has produced bumper crops of martyrs on both sides, each side feeling full of righteous anger toward the other. Martyrs almost by definition feel justified. Almost by definition, a martyr believes the responsibility lies elsewhere. Almost by definition this supposition is true within the reference frame of the martyr, and within the reference frame of those who venerate the martyr. It is only when one steps outside that frame that the situation begins to look odd. That the Muslim martyr begins to look like a murderer or the Christian martyr begins to look like a masochist, or when the Jewish Martyr begins to look like somebody embracing victimhood. Turn the whole idea yet again, and you may need to come to grips with the notion of martyrdom as a transactional agreement between two groups from which each gains some sort of advantage, what might be called "secondary gain" in psychological terms. Martyrs in some ways — in religious terms, perhaps — may be good for business, a form of advertising. There are all sorts of ways of looking at the phenomenon. Running it down or deprecating it is one of them, but not to my mind a very useful one, since it doesn't account for the long term popularity of the thing. People have not chosen to be martyrs only for religion, if you think on it. Many military rewards are given people who have martyred themselves in some fashion for their friends, throwing themselves on a grenade, doing things of suicidal courage for the sake of their comrades and their countries. We have been looking at this thing for a while now as though it were strictly a religious thing, but in some ways John has a point when he talks about it in a military sense as well, and we do ourselves no favors if we try to confine the discussion to religion. Confined to religion, the question too easily becomes a question of, which religion? and, alas!, that question is frequently turned to the question of Christianity versus other religious preferences. That is not a bad topic for discussion, but here it may be something of a tangential topic for discussion. Jannissaries had honor, as did Samurai, as do goat-herders and slaves, though their concepts of honor may vary greatly. I trust that I have confused things sufficiently? Yours, Bob Kaven |
||
|
OwlSA Member Rara Avis
since 2005-11-07
Posts 9347Durban, South Africa |
Whilst this discussion has changed from its original path, I would like to revert to it to give my ha’penny’s worth as regards the initial issue, and thus, here follow a few random thoughts on “honour”: If honour is based on what others think of one, does it really remain honour? Does it not then become an ego trip? What is more important, what honour IS? - or what honour SHOULD BE? And then, SHOULD there be honour? Doesn’t it’s existence – as opposed to what is right or wrong – defy what the reason for its existence is? In my humble opinion, “honourable” as a word and/or concept, is far easier to define, far less controversial and far more pure than the word and/or concept, “honour”. Then, of course, “honour” as a verb, in my humble opinion, falls into the same category as “honourable” with regard to this aspect – honour thy father and mother, along with the past participle “honoured” – e.g. I am honoured by what you said about me. When honour requires stupidity, honour becomes just that. With regard to the Lépine issue, despite apparent proof of the “suffer froms” I personally don’t believe in them and believe that everyone is responsible for his/her actions. One can rise above one’s circumstances, no matter what. One can, but doesn’t always. I see circumstances as possible reasons, not as excuses. I think most of the world’s woes are the result of parents not bringing up their children properly – being too lenient for them to learn responsibility – and/or being too strict for them to learn the value of the good, the right, love (all 4 types, but especially agapé), compassion, consideration for others and the South African “ubuntu” (pronounced “oo BOON too”) meaning “for the good of the community” or in the three musqueteer tradition – one for all and all for one (but not AGAINST anyone), and not teaching them, possibly above all else, wisdom. However, that doesn’t stop children from teaching themselves these things. As vain as this may sound and be, my favourite teacher and the one who has taught me the most, and the most successfully, is myself. Risking one’s life to save another is not always (is it ever?) a conscious decision to throw away one’s own life. It is an altruistic act of giving, goodness, agape love, kindness, rightness, compassion, sincerity which can result in one’s own harm or even death. It is not wanting the other person to die, and doing something about it. A risk is exactly that – a risk – not a certainty. Life is full of risks. The wisdom lies in the choice of risks we take. I say the following with respect. I think that Essorant has missed the entire point about Christianity and is confusing “religionism” with what Christianity is all about – just as he/she is confusing Christians with Christ. I don’t think I found anything that Stephen said, that I don’t agree with, or at least respect with vigour. I must say that I enjoyed reading through every word of this immensely. Owl |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Interesting, owl. I have a certain curiousity about how a person with a sense of egolessness might become thorny about honor. A humble person may indeed have honor, I suppose, but the notion of fighting a war or a duel to defend it is something I have not yet succeeded in visualizing. Perhaps you might help me? |
||
|
OwlSA Member Rara Avis
since 2005-11-07
Posts 9347Durban, South Africa |
Bob,the first book I read about philosophy took a whole chapter to say that what philosophy is, is impossible to define. That fascinated me for many reasons. I have also noticed that people discussing philosophy (and I include myself at the top of the list) often go off on an unrelated tangent. That interests me a lot too, again for many reasons. Another thing I have noticed is that probably the greatest common denominator in all conversations about anything anywhere is people misunderstanding each other. For that reason, I am going to elucidate what I am confused about and attempt to interpret your question. Then I will try to answer it. If I am wrong in my interpretation, please let me know. Firstly I am not sure whether your question is about your first or second sentence or both. For the purpose of simplicity, I am going to assume it is both. First sentence: what I think you are saying is that surely a person with a sense of egolessness would have honour. That, in my opinion, is a reasonable assumption. However, it depends on what honour is. Personally, I would feel far more honoured to be described as honourable than having honour. As such I would feel that I do the right thing, as opposed to the accepted/expected thing. On the basis of that understanding, I can see how a person with a sense of egolessness would be honourable, without necessarily “having honour.” Second sentence: I am not sure whether you mean that you haven’t succeeded in visualising a humble person fighting a battle or duel to defend that person’s honour (or honour itself?) – or whether you mean that you haven’t succeeded in visualising yourself fighting a battle or duel to defend your honour/honour itself – or whether you mean that you are a humble person and therefore both of the above are the same. If what you mean includes yourself (whether exclusively or along with the humble person), then perhaps you have the same understanding of honour as I do. If you mean the humble person only, I see now, that my answer is exactly the same. Thus, my answer is a humble person can be honourable without necessarily “having honour.” Somebody that has no interest in philosophy, would have summarized the above paragraph to “It seems you have the same understanding of honour as I do if you have a problem visualising anyone fighting a duel or battle to defend his/her honour/honour itself.” Or, having taken the route I did, he/she would subsequently have edited the long version to the short one. However, I took great pleasure in the path, and wish to leave it as it is. Owl |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
The dalai Lama would be a guy who strives to be a selfless guy in the actual literal sense of the term, owl. He literally enbodies the notion of a person without self in terms of a language that was doing pushups before English was bouncing backetballs, to use a poor metaphor. He maintains a certain heading or set of headings around spiritual values and politival values, behaves ethically pretty much by most standards, exerts, effect, intention and direction, deals with conflict by pretty much leaving it in the heands of those who provoke it and goes on. I would say that he is honorable, but I believe that it is a sort of honor that seems somehow to be other than what we have been talking about. The honor involved here seems every bit as real, but seems organized outside the notion of self or pride. It is the element of self or pride that makes the current western nature of honor, for me, so difficult. Hence my difficulty here. Honor is a useful notion, possibly even a vital notion. Something happens to it when it becomes attacked to the notion of ego or self that both the notion of that compound ego/self and of honor that seems to do damage and seems to confuse converrsation beyond my own ability to clarify at this time. When you talk about my honor, however, I believe you are on shaky grounds indeed. This may be why so many Samurai — other than economic — had to become monks. |
||
|
latearrival Member Ascendant
since 2003-03-21
Posts 5499Florida |
There is a new reality show about saving whales.These men are suposedly putting their own lives at risk to follow their deep feelings about savinig these whales from whalers. Would you say this is just egoism or false heroics? latearrival |
||
|
latearrival Member Ascendant
since 2003-03-21
Posts 5499Florida |
I guess what I am tryig to ask is: if they feel they are honoring their true feelings about doing something positive to those feelings are they to be judged as honorable people? latearrival |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
I don't know of anyone who wouldn't respect someone for taking a risk for a cause they consider worthy. I don't see how this would be different. |
||
|
latearrival Member Ascendant
since 2003-03-21
Posts 5499Florida |
Thank you for answering me.I wondered what others thought of this show.latearrival |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
