Better to know right from wrong or know God?

[teddyaware]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Unless anyone has a way to undo the Fall that choice is really not in front of any of us.

A fully informed choice to enter this fallen state was made by all the spirit children of God (those who would go on to obtain mortal bodies) at the Council in Heaven. God could not send his spirit children into this dangerous, though absolutely essential, fallen state in righteousness unless they were first given the opportunity to give their uncoerced consent to God’s foreordained plan to allow the fall to take place. Because all the eventual inhabitants of this earth chose to willingly enter this fallen state before before the foundation of the world,, Adam and Eve were merely acting as proxies when they partook of the tree of knowledge, which means our first parents were no more guilty of transgression than any of the rest us when they initiated the fall on our behalf.

[mfbukowski]

52 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Can you explain what point the etymologically intertwined words in some languages is making?  I'd like to understand your thinking on that better.  I'm understanding it yet I don't think.

I think the concepts on these languages are so intertwined that in a sense, we do not separate the way we think about them.

God is good, therefore goodness is godliness at least in English.

We have this tendency to think of "things" outside us, in the world outside our minds, but I think that itself is an illusion.

We write, OBVIOUSLY in words and so also think therefore in words, at least in composing sentences,  mentally.

If the words are intertwined then the ideas are intertwined at least historically.  For most, speaking IS thinking "out loud" as we put it. (hence the importance of the philosophy of language to the mind itself)

Yet of course atheists are often "good" people.

I often quote a famous athiest, Hitchens, who believes we have a little voice which tells us good from bad.

Perhaps it evolved; for society to exist we MUST be able to get along with neighbors in our alliance against lions and tigers and bears,oh my, two legged or otherwise!

Goodness has survival value, pure and simple!

But English interestingly evolved in a Christian milieu, 1066* is only halfway between Jesus and today.

Other languages had gods aplenty and reasons to be "good" which are not necessarily mentally connected.

Interesting point!

* 1066, Battle of Hastings, Gemanic languages smash against French and Roman/Latin cultures and eventually evolve into English 

Edited August 16, 2023 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Can you explain what point the etymologically intertwined words in some languages is making?  I'd like to understand your thinking on that better.  I'm not understanding it yet I don't think.

How nice you are!

I might have said "What the #@%& are you talking about?? "

😜

[Niblo]

23 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I think they go hand in hand.

Yes. 👍

[BlueDreams]

On 8/15/2023 at 3:55 PM, Rain said:

I am reading "Anatomy of the Soul".  One quote from it:

"In fact, the story of Eden shows how, like Adam and Eve, we are more interested in knowing right from wrong...than knowing God..."

1. Do you think people are more interested in knowing right from wrong than knowing God?

2. Is that a good thing or not?

3. If not a good thing, how do we change that? If it is a good thing, why is it good?

Full disclosure: I, personally, think it is better to try to know God.

That's a really interesting idea. I can see that in someways. People like clear tangible standards and expectations. Particularly in cultures/nations that lean into idealism (much of the US is definitely one of them). It's understandable. It gives clear expectations on how to live and how to discern what's good or bad to us. It can set up foundational assumptions and give a false sense of simplicity or clarity to moral dilemmas and social positions. 

I definitely think you could make the case people care more for knowing clear ethos over God. Sometimes even when they're insisting they care most about knowing God, HOW they know God is often carefully bordered by set interpretations and assumptions one what is of God and what isn't. So experiences, thoughts, and perspectives that may also be touched or inspired by God get dismissed because they conflict with an ethos. And then there's others who place God as distant or non-existent but believe in a need for ethos in some way. Obviously they would put ethos over God. 

 

I think its a good thing but not a full thing. I would rather live in a world that people live by some degree of ethos that isn't self serving. I can also see God reflected in many aspects of the ethos people usually hold. But it's not full. I see quite often that ethos and moralistic assumptions will often lead to dead ends or nonsensical assertions when stuck to rigidly. And of course it can often become a hindrance when our tribes ethos are seen as in conflict with another trine. To me knowing God leads to a more ethical dynamism that can allow for a system of ethos that helps us better shift in our contexts or accept changes. It also leaves to a more constant sense of self in my experience. My personal ethos have often been challenged by life...but that challenge has often reinforced or expanded my understanding of God, then human nature, then myself in all of it. And I like to believe that's in part because I reach for the real constant -a loving God - moreso than my false sense of constants, expectations, and universal truths that turned out weren't so universal at times. 

Beside with God first and ethos will naturally follow. With and ethos first, God and many good thing with Them may be entirely missed. 

 

With luv, 

BD 

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

That's a really interesting idea. I can see that in someways. People like clear tangible standards and expectations. Particularly in cultures/nations that lean into idealism (much of the US is definitely one of them). It's understandable. It gives clear expectations on how to live and how to discern what's good or bad to us. It can set up foundational assumptions and give a false sense of simplicity or clarity to moral dilemmas and social positions. 

I definitely think you could make the case people care more for knowing clear ethos over God. Sometimes even when they're insisting they care most about knowing God, HOW they know God is often carefully bordered by set interpretations and assumptions one what is of God and what isn't. So experiences, thoughts, and perspectives that may also be touched or inspired by God get dismissed because they conflict with an ethos. And then there's others who place God as distant or non-existent but believe in a need for ethos in some way. Obviously they would put ethos over God. 

 

I think its a good thing but not a full thing. I would rather live in a world that people live by some degree of ethos that isn't self serving. I can also see God reflected in many aspects of the ethos people usually hold. But it's not full. I see quite often that ethos and moralistic assumptions will often lead to dead ends or nonsensical assertions when stuck to rigidly. And of course it can often become a hindrance when our tribes ethos are seen as in conflict with another trine. To me knowing God leads to a more ethical dynamism that can allow for a system of ethos that helps us better shift in our contexts or accept changes. It also leaves to a more constant sense of self in my experience. My personal ethos have often been challenged by life...but that challenge has often reinforced or expanded my understanding of God, then human nature, then myself in all of it. And I like to believe that's in part because I reach for the real constant -a loving God - moreso than my false sense of constants, expectations, and universal truths that turned out weren't so universal at times. 

Beside with God first and ethos will naturally follow. With and ethos first, God and many good thing with Them may be entirely missed. 

 

With luv, 

BD 

Nicely balanced analysis.

[Rain]

44 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

That's a really interesting idea. I can see that in someways. People like clear tangible standards and expectations. Particularly in cultures/nations that lean into idealism (much of the US is definitely one of them). It's understandable. It gives clear expectations on how to live and how to discern what's good or bad to us. It can set up foundational assumptions and give a false sense of simplicity or clarity to moral dilemmas and social positions. 

I definitely think you could make the case people care more for knowing clear ethos over God. Sometimes even when they're insisting they care most about knowing God, HOW they know God is often carefully bordered by set interpretations and assumptions one what is of God and what isn't. So experiences, thoughts, and perspectives that may also be touched or inspired by God get dismissed because they conflict with an ethos. And then there's others who place God as distant or non-existent but believe in a need for ethos in some way. Obviously they would put ethos over God. 

 

I think its a good thing but not a full thing. I would rather live in a world that people live by some degree of ethos that isn't self serving. I can also see God reflected in many aspects of the ethos people usually hold. But it's not full. I see quite often that ethos and moralistic assumptions will often lead to dead ends or nonsensical assertions when stuck to rigidly. And of course it can often become a hindrance when our tribes ethos are seen as in conflict with another trine. To me knowing God leads to a more ethical dynamism that can allow for a system of ethos that helps us better shift in our contexts or accept changes. It also leaves to a more constant sense of self in my experience. My personal ethos have often been challenged by life...but that challenge has often reinforced or expanded my understanding of God, then human nature, then myself in all of it. And I like to believe that's in part because I reach for the real constant -a loving God - moreso than my false sense of constants, expectations, and universal truths that turned out weren't so universal at times. 

Beside with God first and ethos will naturally follow. With and ethos first, God and many good thing with Them may be entirely missed. 

 

With luv, 

BD 

I agree with calm on the analysis.  I really appreciate you putting in the time to make it.  

[The Nehor]

14 hours ago, Rain said:

Tell me more of what you are thinking here.

We already know right from wrong. According to Mormon we can even know the difference perfectly. Knowing God is harder particularly because due to the nature of the relationship it is very one-sided. God can reveal Himself to a person but a person can’t search out God unless God wishes to be found.

[The Nehor]

13 hours ago, teddyaware said:

A fully informed choice to enter this fallen state was made by all the spirit children of God (those who would go on to obtain mortal bodies) at the Council in Heaven. God could not send his spirit children into this dangerous, though absolutely essential, fallen state in righteousness unless they were first given the opportunity to give their uncoerced consent to God’s foreordained plan to allow the fall to take place. Because all the eventual inhabitants of this earth chose to willingly enter this fallen state before before the foundation of the world,, Adam and Eve were merely acting as proxies when they partook of the tree of knowledge, which means our first parents were no more guilty of transgression than any of the rest us when they initiated the fall on our behalf.

I do sometimes get the urge to ask my premortal self what the hell he thought he was doing? If my memory is ever restored I might have some trouble reconciling his naïveté.