Good and Evil

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

Because, without that, all is moral relativism. Without that higher arbiter Trotsky, Lenin, and Stalin are just as moral as you or I.

Nope, and although you took it out of the quote of my words, I explained how that is not so.

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Islander said:

Secularists just refuse to be confused by the facts. Without God, we're just cosmic dust and it would matter not if we live, die, have rights or eat each other for dinner. 

No. From the post he was responding to:

Neither need prevail and the conflict need not turn on theism. Use a common ground like the Golden Rule and create a solution that you could abide, foreseeing the possibility that said solution can be used not just for you but enforced upon you including if you were in any other social position. The Golden Rule can be used and is used to value all human life, including the aged and unborn.

Edited September 10, 2020 by Meadowchik

[california boy]

13 hours ago, Islander said:

How do you decide what's moral? What are the standards that set what is moral or immoral?

The same way every other civilization in the history of the world has.  By starting out with the idea that it is better to get along with others than it is to be enemies with everyone.  So you do things that encourage personal relationships.  Murder, rape, stealing their wives etc. are a simple outgrowth of this idea.  You don't need a god to tell you that. 

Virtually ever single major civilization has arrived at these basic ideas.  The vast majority of them did not seek guidance from the God of the Old and New Testament.  That is pretty solid proof that mankind does not need to hear from God on how to behave towards their fellow men.

 

[california boy]

11 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Thank you.

Yes I get this, it's right in line with where I was for a long time before my belief system exploded. (I say it that way because it's important to recognise the traumatic nature of it. The change was not so characteristic of my personality.)

Anyways, that might be why my experience now feels as joyful as it does, because my new moral code from the ashes (see here)

"My moral code is quite accessible. It starts with acknowledging that I exist and others exist. Then I also acknowledge that I want to be treated like a person by others and that therefore I can help create a world where others treat me like a person by myself treating others like individuals just as real as me. It's not esoteric, but it provides the principle upon which all kinds of humane relationships can form between the individual and society and between respective individuals. 

By the way, it makes room for the freedom to believe, too, so it makes room for theism. It is inclusive and it does not depend on one person's or one group's interpretation of what God/s have said."

does not depend upon the logical premise of opposition or an overarching universal logic. 

If anything, it collectively depends upon the social/communal nature of human beings. But I am not bothered by that dependence. What's important is to have a code that others can agree upon because it is mutually beneficial.

And I feel like I was able to discover more joy despite the absence of a conviction of some overarching cosmic meaning, maybe even because of that absence:

"Just speaking from my experience, it was a weird transition going from the paradigm of "the fiery darts of temptation" of devils to no belief in devils. Throughout my life, I was very careful to avoid the appearance of evil, and try to renew the Spirit so that I could withstand evil. Of course, since "as a (wo)man thinketh," so she is, I would even avoid many types of thoughts. Then, after belief in God and devils was over, I changed something. I allowed myself to think through an entire scenario.

Here's an example: suppose as a married woman I had always felt uncomfortable being alone with a man who was not in my family. If a repairmen was in my house in the past, I would have been afraid of temptations that I had been told could happen, even to the point of blocking any thought of the obvious stereotypical temptations and avoiding any unnecessary contact. But now, I don't block the thought, I think it through. Do I want to fool around with a man who is not my husband if given an easy opportunity and no one would have to know? What if he was real charming or handsome? I found something about myself and my marriage. No, I don't want any of that. I just want to be with my husband. It doesn't matter how "attractive" another man is in theory, the thought is repulsive because of the impersonal nature of such a thing and the betrayal it would represent. It's not tempting at all.

Since my beliefs changed I haven't had any prevailing desire to do wicked things, and this fact is actually very gratifying to me. It's nice to know that belief in God isn't the only thing that holds me back from doing wicked things. I have values that are part of who I am. 

I think that the belief in Satan and his minions and their temptations might rob us a bit of this knowledge of our own goodness, and what we really want. And therefore, that belief can rob us of joy."

Maybe as grown humans we are still like children who benefit from the model toward independence, maybe some growth happens uniquely when we feel most alone or we feel the finity of human life.

I believe I have made meaning for my life, whether I am the first or ten billionth to do so makes no difference.

My little boy is a thoughtful fella, he feels the problems of the world deeply and sometimes it is too much. Besides ensuring he has proper rest and sunshine, I also found myself articulating my belief system inadvertently. All I was attempting was to try to coax him out of that mental/emotional precipice that overwhelmed him.

I used Pixar as a visual aid for him:

https://youtu.be/93JqK32LqW4

The Toys are stuck in an incinerator, and their would-be last choice is to hold hands and comfort each other because there is nothing left that they can do. 

I told my son that while we don't want bad things to happen, it's undeniable that they do. So, I asked if he'd rather be holding his friends' hands or fighting them during a bad thing.

The Toys do get saved, by other toys that Woody had previously helped.

(Pausing here to say that the Toy Story series is a rather brilliant metaphor for secular humanism imo.)

So bad things do happen, but kindness helps us endure them and kindness can also help us overcome them.

I think it helped. So did a better bedtime.

Kindness, to me, is the meaning to be made and it is the greatest weapon for good and against evil.

 

 

 

 

Thank you for taking the time to articulate your thoughts so clearly.  This is really very insightful.  I feel the exact same way.  When we start making choices because it is our own personal values rather than leaning on someone to tell us what we should do, the real personal growth occurs.  Morality comes from within rather than out of fear of some ominous devil. 

[mfbukowski]

45 minutes ago, california boy said:

The same way every other civilization in the history of the world has.  By starting out with the idea that it is better to get along with others than it is to be enemies with everyone.  So you do things that encourage personal relationships.  Murder, rape, stealing their wives etc. are a simple outgrowth of this idea.  You don't need a god to tell you that. 

Virtually ever single major civilization has arrived at these basic ideas.  The vast majority of them did not seek guidance from the God of the Old and New Testament.  That is pretty solid proof that mankind does not need to hear from God on how to behave towards their fellow men.

 

There is a first century Christian volume called the Didache. I wish it made it into what we now call "scriptures."

It speaks about the two ways of life. One is the Way of Life, the other is the Way of Death. I consider it one of the first examples of pragmatic philosophy.

The way of life details exactly what you are saying above.

A moral culture is about having children and leading a moral family Life which also is a life that works for society. You cannot bring up good children and a horrible crime-ridden culture. I don't mean that as a swipe against your lifestyle because I know that you believe that as well.

The bottom line for me is that I believe that morality evolved. Or at least that's one way to look at it.

Civilization and peace have survival value, obviously. 

Of course there are cultures that do not practice that.

Their neighbors see that they do not survive as cultures, and ironically will enforce deadly peace upon them.

Neighboring cultures do not like living next door to cannibals.

During the last century Germany and Japan were "strongly encouraged" to change their intentions.  All one has to do is look around the world today to see the same thing.  When a nation becomes warlike it's time to run to the UN.

Living morally and following the Commandments and following family values simply Works in a culture. It provides peace freedom & prosperity.

Thousands of generations of human lives have proven that Civilization simply works.

It's all right there in the Golden Rule and every civilization has proven it.

 

Edited September 10, 2020 by mfbukowski

[california boy]

12 hours ago, Islander said:

Secularists just refuse to be confused by the facts. Without God, we're just cosmic dust and it would matter not if we live, die, have rights or eat each other for dinner. 

You are so caught up in your religious rhetoric  that it has completely distorted rational thought.  There are a host of reasons why humans don't eat others for dinner that have nothing to do with God telling them it is wrong.  When people eat grandma, they tend to miss her during the holidays.  When other people eat grandma, it tends to upset her children.  They seem to want revenge and start eating your grandma.  Besides it is just creepy eating someone you love.

Just how many civilizations have talked to God before deciding what code they were going to live by?  For thousands of years, yes thousands, there was just one little insignificant nomadic goat herding tribe that seems to have access to this God that you are now trying to say controls the morals of the world.  It is a ridiculous idea not born out by reality.

[The Nehor]

14 hours ago, Islander said:

The fact that the West has decided to jettison its Judeo-Christian  foundation does not negate that fact that the value system, the system of laws and the very rights that we all enjoy are rooted there. Its influence has permeated the world and America, for example, has gone to great lengths to share and spread those values the world over. 

In most of the world, people do not have the rights we ,cherish and enjoy in this country, . Think of the fact that millions live in countries that have no Judeo-Chrisgian roots and those are the most repressive,  most brutal and backwards societies on earth. The West has rejected the Lawgiver but enjoys the benefits of His laws. Regrettable.  

God has defined what is good and what is evil. Besides that there is only human opinion which changes constantly. Thus without an absolute and immutable definition of good and evil we are left with situational, utilitarian and ever shifting opinion, not morality. 

Please explain then why the Judeo-Christian societies were as regressive as the rest of the world until around the 14th or 15th century. There was no flowering of freedom or justice by those who followed it until pretty recently.

It is also worth noting that pantheists and pagans often have absolute and immutable “good” in their philosophies.

[california boy]

6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

There is a first century Christian volume called the Didache. I wish it made it into what we now call "scriptures."

It speaks about the two ways of life. One is the Way of Life, the other is the Way of Death. I consider it one of the first examples of pragmatic philosophy.

The way of life details exactly what you are saying above.

A moral culture is about having children and leading a moral family Life which also is a life that works for society. You cannot bring up good children and a horrible crime-ridden culture. I don't mean that as a swipe against your lifestyle because I know that you believe that as well.

The bottom line for me is that I believe that morality evolved. Or at least that's one way to look at it.

Civilization and peace have survival value, obviously. 

Of course there are cultures that do not practice that.

Their neighbors see that they do not survive as cultures, and ironically will enforce deadly peace upon them.

Neighboring cultures do not like living next door to cannibals.

During the last century Germany and Japan were "strongly encouraged" to change their intentions.  All one has to do is look around the world today to see the same thing.  When a nation becomes warlike it's time to run to the UN.

 

 

Completely agree.  It is why people on an island out in the middle of a vast ocean generally ends up having very similar values as the rest of the world that they have no knowledge of and have not even heard of and knows nothing of the God of the Old and New Testament.

[The Nehor]

13 hours ago, Islander said:

God chastised Job! For nearly three chapters God asks question after question to illustrated that we are a grain of sand in a thousand mile coastline. We have no way of possibly understanding the reasons why God does what He does. Suffering has meaning, even if we can't grasp what it is. That is at heart of the story of Job. 

Yes, but read the final chapter. Job spent his time trying to figure out what this suffering for. His friends just said God is too great to understand or that Job must have sinned. In the end God commends Job and says that his friends were lacking. Job tried to understand why he was suffering. His friends lazily chalked it up to the greatness of God. Job was commended but his friends had to give sacrifices to repent.

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Thank you for taking the time to articulate your thoughts so clearly.  This is really very insightful.  I feel the exact same way.  When we start making choices because it is our own personal values rather than leaning on someone to tell us what we should do, the real personal growth occurs.  Morality comes from within rather than out of fear of some ominous devil. 

It does. There's something that happens when we affirm the value of others. When people do that, it can help them feel valued also. It is a good cycle that promotes individual and communal growth.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Completely agree.  It is why people on an island out in the middle of a vast ocean generally ends up having very similar values as the rest of the world that they have no knowledge of and have not even heard of and knows nothing of the God of the Old and New Testament.

And clearly neither Egypt, Babylon, Persia, Greece, or other ancient cultures were based on Judeo Christian values.

Those did not exist.

Hammurabi's code based on Christianity?

Hard to establish historically, I think.

Yet of course Dispensationalism and Adam and Eve present a different view. 

Pick your paradigm.

Either way, Civilization works to make people..... civilized!!

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Completely agree.  It is why people on an island out in the middle of a vast ocean generally ends up having very similar values as the rest of the world that they have no knowledge of and have not even heard of and knows nothing of the God of the Old and New Testament.

Minoan Civilization?

That literally fits.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minoan_civilization

Edited September 10, 2020 by mfbukowski

[The Nehor]

41 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And clearly neither Egypt, Babylon, Persia, Greece, or other ancient cultures were based on Judeo Christian values.

Those did not exist.

Hammurabi's code based on Christianity?

Hard to establish historically, I think.

Yet of course Dispensationalism and Adam and Eve present a different view. 

Pick your paradigm.

Either way, Civilization works to make people..... civilized!!

 

If they were arguing dispensationalism they would have to give up the idea that one has to believe in God as the moral code would just be a vestigial thing. It is weird. Most of the people arguing that belief in God is required for morality seem to argue that it must be a specific kind of God and seem to rely exclusively on Judaism and Christianity (probably not their cousin Islam though) but ignore that most Christian civilizations were not superior morally to their neighbors for much of history. It is also odd that most of those arguing for it are members of the Church so they are logically apostate versions that they are suggesting causes all this progress. It also ignores the doctrine of the Church they espouse so I suspect their belief in this “God requires morality” comes from the apostates. Basically they are heretics. Anyone have a bonfire available?

[mfbukowski]

14 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

If they were arguing dispensationalism they would have to give up the idea that one has to believe in God as the moral code would just be a vestigial thing. It is weird. Most of the people arguing that belief in God is required for morality seem to argue that it must be a specific kind of God and seem to rely exclusively on Judaism and Christianity (probably not their cousin Islam though) but ignore that most Christian civilizations were not superior morally to their neighbors for much of history. It is also odd that most of those arguing for it are members of the Church so they are logically apostate versions that they are suggesting causes all this progress. It also ignores the doctrine of the Church they espouse so I suspect their belief in this “God requires morality” comes from the apostates. Basically they are heretics. Anyone have a bonfire available?

Yeah!!

Let's grab our torches an round em up!

Death to the Heretics! death to the Heretics!

<Oh boy.

I bet I'll see that comment on an anti-mormon website> 🥵 

[mrmarklin]

16 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

No. From the post he was responding to:

Neither need prevail and the conflict need not turn on theism. Use a common ground like the Golden Rule and create a solution that you could abide, foreseeing the possibility that said solution can be used not just for you but enforced upon you including if you were in any other social position. The Golden Rule can be used and is used to value all human life, including the aged and unborn.

The Golden Rule is its self Theist.  It came from the Bible.  Am I missing something?

At the end of the day, Atheism is totally selfish.  Don't like a rule?  Start a new morality!

(John) Locke said "that if there were no God and no divine law, the result would be moral anarchy: every individual could have no law but his own will, no end but himself.  He would be a god to himself, and the satisfaction of his own will the sole measure and end of all his actions."

This is old Marxist stuff.   In other words My or Society's GOOD ends justify the means to achieve them.  Certainly a good atheist can convince him/herself of this.  Many have.  Cain certainly thought so.

Edited September 10, 2020 by mrmarklin
Additional information.

[mrmarklin]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

And clearly neither Egypt, Babylon, Persia, Greece, or other ancient cultures were based on Judeo Christian values.

Those did not exist.

Hammurabi's code based on Christianity?

Hard to establish historically, I think.

Yet of course Dispensationalism and Adam and Eve present a different view. 

Pick your paradigm.

Either way, Civilization works to make people..... civilized!!

 

Personally, I don't really believe this.

According to the Church Adam taught his children morality.  Obviously, they got very sidetracked, but the basic beliefs in some sort of morality had to remain, or God's children would have descended into barbarism.  And if one reads some of the great myths of our forefathers there is usually a link to the true gospel.  The Scandinavian myths where Loki is the "bad" son come to mind.

It's kind of like almost every human culture has some sort of flood myth.

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

It came from the Bible

Do you have an approximate date you see it as being revealed?

Added:  Never mind...I see you subscribe to the idea came from Adam to all later civilizations.

Edited September 10, 2020 by Calm

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

It's kind of like almost every human culture has some sort of flood myth

Since almost every human culture experiences floods, using this to demonstrate a common origin isn’t that useful. You need something more unusual in experience. 

[mrmarklin]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Please explain then why the Judeo-Christian societies were as regressive as the rest of the world until around the 14th or 15th century. There was no flowering of freedom or justice by those who followed it until pretty recently.

It is also worth noting that pantheists and pagans often have absolute and immutable “good” in their philosophies.

You haven't read Civilization by Niall Ferguson yet, have you?  He posits explanations for all of this.

Yeah, it probably takes a book to explain it, so I won't here.

Edited September 10, 2020 by mrmarklin

[mrmarklin]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Since almost every human culture experiences floods, using this to demonstrate a common origin isn’t that useful. You need something more unusual in experience. 

Not sure what you mean by this.  It's an example of an ancient event that links civilizations.  Its illustrative of the link all humanity has.  Why does everyone have a flood myth?  Even in the Americas??

[Ahab]

45 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

Not sure what you mean by this.  It's an example of an ancient event that links civilizations.  Its illustrative of the link all humanity has.  Why does everyone have a flood myth?  Even in the Americas??

The question there, as I see it, is whether or not they are all talking about the same flood.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

The Golden Rule is its self Theist.

Nope.

Kant might have been first to give arguments that show it can be derived by reason alone

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative

Edited September 11, 2020 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

Personally, I don't really believe this.

According to the Church Adam taught his children morality.  Obviously, they got very sidetracked, but the basic beliefs in some sort of morality had to remain, or God's children would have descended into barbarism.  And if one reads some of the great myths of our forefathers there is usually a link to the true gospel.  The Scandinavian myths where Loki is the "bad" son come to mind.

It's kind of like almost every human culture has some sort of flood myth.

What is it you don't believe?

I said

Quote

 

Hard to establish historically, I think.

Yet of course Dispensationalism and Adam and Eve present a different view. 

Pick your paradigm.

Either way, Civilization works to make people..... civilized!! 

 

The view you espouse is called "Dispensationalism".   That is exactly the view you express.in your post.  That IS the position I mentioned as another  possible paradigm, so what is it you don't agree with?

Yes the story/paradigm/myth/allegory /parable the church teaches IS about Adam and other people mentioned in the scriptures.  And yes part of that view would explain why every culture has a flood myth.  The belief is that God re-reveals these ideas to teach his children the lessons contained in the stories IS dispensationalism. 

But why have these stories survived and been useful to mankind for thousands of years?   That is the question here.

I was presenting another way of seeing it.   Simply asserting that you believed in dispensationalism is nice to know I guess, and certainly not surprising from your previous posts but just saying that you disagree with the other position doesn't advance the discussion.

There are alternatives to your position.  And....?

At this point one might put forth a reason why your position works better that the other view.   I am not seeing that.

[Meadowchik]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Nope.

Kant might have been first to give arguments that show it can be derived by reason alone

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative

And the negative and positive versions are already reasonable. Start with the premise that human beings must deal with other human beings on a consistent basis, then it is reasonable contribute to a pattern that when benefiting others can promote benefit for all.

Perhaps that is why some form of the Golden Rule can be traced back to the ancients, to nearly all religions and ethical systems and is widely well-regarded. It makes sense, being one in a world of many.

[mrmarklin]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Nope.

Kant might have been first to give arguments that show it can be derived by reason alone

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative

Kant is certainly entitled to his opinions. 
But that is not what experience teaches.