What is there to interpret in "Thou Shall not kill"?
Read the rest of the thread; there were a couple of pages on that earlier. We all eat. Many of us live in nations with capital punishment. We all live in nations that have gone to war.
There is a G-d and a fixed view. We call it Torah, you may call it Old and New Testament, or the Koran. Same G-d. Same basic messages. I can't be held responsible for the Japanese and their beliefs. And it is, in fact irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
On the contrary; rather than being irrelevant, that's half the point of the discussion: to allow some of us with different beliefs to appreciate those of others, even if they don't necessarily agree. Your "fixed views" and G-d differ from other peoples'. If you'd like, feel free to start a new thread for "only Abrahamic adherents allowed!" and exclude the Japanese and the atheists and anyone else you like. Then you can start from the standpoint that you're right and everyone else is wrong. Here, we've all of us been at least trying to accept the fact that others might not agree, and we've been doing it for quite a number of pages.
|
What benefits the group is what is right, not what some omnipotent being in the sky tells me to do.
Who/What determines what benefits the group? There are a LOT of things that I could argue that could benefit the "group" that I personally don't think is "right". In many cases, I could argue that murder is "right" if they are getting rid of people that are not benefitting the group.
Very dangerous line of thinking down that road...
In many cases, I could argue that murder is "right" if they are getting rid of people that are not benefitting the group.
Isn't that exactly what capital punishment is?
|
|
Now we're into world-view, not just religion. But you raise an important point: if you buy into the whole Bible thing, then submission and punishment become the cornerstones of existence. If not, they become irrelevant at best, and more likely extremely distasteful. How a society can reconcile this two viewpoints is something we'll have to watch for (the sparring between Antonin Scalia and Sandra Day Lewis on the U.S. Supreme Court sort of shows the whole struggle in microcosm).
Emphasis mine, but only to point out the part I don't understand. Kirth -- what are you trying to say here?
|
|
In many cases, I could argue that murder is "right" if they are getting rid of people that are not benefitting the group.
Isn't that exactly what capital punishment is?
I'm talking about going further than that, though. People on disability, welfare, etc. These are people that are a huge drain on society and I don't necessarily see how they are "benefitting" the "group". (I don't really feel this way, just showing how the argument could go.)
|
|
I think Moff & I differ greatly on the process of recording the inspired word of God (the Bible).
We may be closer than you think. I do believe that the word of God was divinely inspired. After that things get a bit fuzzy for me as to what exactly that means. Everything in the Bible is important and meant to be there (whatever that means) and is right. It is often difficult to figure out what is important, necessary, irrelevant for now, or unimportant. Is eating shellfish important to me? Should I not? Or do I get out of it because of the "new law"? Is it really important for me to fully understand exactly what "we are made in God's image" truly means? Should you cut your hair or not (against the New Testament)?
I believe that the Bible is divinely inspired and says exactly what it is supposed to say. How the Bible came to be is a little fun and fascinating, but I feel ultimately pointless. It really comes down to a matter of faith as to whether or not it was divinely inspired. And I feel that it is up to God talking to the individual (whatever that means) to give them the interpretation best for them. You and I have both said that most of the major points of Christianity we agree on. The vast majority of things that we don't agree on I feel ultimately make very little difference. If a woman feels that they should be quiet in church or not doesn't really influence their salvation (in my opinion).
I'm not sure what I am trying to say...
I think that what I am trying to say is that I think that we are closer in beliefs than you are reading here.
Now we're into world-view, not just religion. But you raise an important point: if you buy into the whole Bible thing, then submission and punishment become the cornerstones of existence. If not, they become irrelevant at best, and more likely extremely distasteful.Emphasis mine, but only to point out the part I don't understand. Kirth -- what are you trying to say here?
Well, my understanding of Christianity is that truly accepting God is submission to His will in all things--basically assuming that we, as humans, are irredeemable sinners and that only through Christ can we not be doomed for all eternity, so we need to accept God's plan wholeheartedly and follow Christ... in essence, submit. The alternative is the eternity of hellfire that we all "deserve," right?
But for a non-Christian, there are shades of gray. We can try to be better people without abasing ourselves. We can try to make the world a better place ourselves, without assuming we are powerless in the hands of an omnipotent "Decider." We can feel that we don't necessarily want a system in which everything is about punishment--in fact, some might even believe that punishment for its own sake, as opposed to prevention, is counterproductive. All these views might be misguided, wrong, or even evil, from a Christian standpoint, but from the standpoint of a free (read: non-submitting), thinking person, the doors open up to other possibilities for running things. And the idea that other possibilities might not necessarily and automatically be "wrong" can be considered.
|
|
Well, my understanding of Christianity is that truly accepting God is submission to His will in all things--basically assuming that we, as humans, are irredeemable sinners and that only through Christ can we not be doomed for all eternity, so we need to accept God's plan wholeheartedly and follow Christ... in essence, submit. The alternative is the eternity of hellfire that we all "deserve," right?
But for a non-Christian, there are shades of gray. We can try to be better people without abasing ourselves. We can try to make the world a better place ourselves, without assuming we are powerless in the hands of an omnipotent "Decider." We can feel that we don't necessarily want a system in which everything is about punishment--in fact, some might even believe that punishment for its own sake, as opposed to prevention, is counterproductive. All these views might be misguided, wrong, or even evil, from a Christian standpoint, but from the standpoint of a free (read: non-submitting), thinking person, the doors open up to other possibilities for running things. And the idea that other possibilities might not necessarily and automatically be "wrong" can be considered.
Ok, forget about the whole Christian heaven/hell thing for a minute. This feels a whole lot like when I was teaching. When I was showing how grading was to be done and how things were weighted and so on I had a surprisingly large number of kids say "so if I only turn in X assignments, I can still pass with a D".
Its the whole shades of gray thing that I don't fully understand. It feels to me like people want to shoot for the shades of gray rather than shooting for "white" (or whatever).
People keep bringing up the "punishment" thing. I see it more as a reward.
If you want to go with the "judge" thing, this is how I see it...
You die and are brought before God the Judge. He looks at your life -- you had a pretty good life. Lots of good "works", did lots of things for others, gave money, etc. On the other hand, you got mad at this one person, kicked a dog, etc. God says "I'm impressed. You did a lot of good things, but unfortunately you're not good enough to get into heaven." At which point Jesus steps up and says "But wait. Remember when I died on the cross? That was for this person too." God then turns to you and asks "Is this true? Do you know Jesus?"
The above is true for all of us. It all comes down to the last question. I just don't see a whole lot of "judging" going on. I see a choice made by the individual in question.
|
|
Well, my understanding of Christianity is that truly accepting God is submission to His will in all things...
Here is an additional question that I will throw out there (that I'm not sure that I am fully ready for the answer to)...
What do people feel that they would be giving up "submitting to God's will"?
What do people feel that they would be giving up "submitting to God's will"?
Adulthood. Autonomy. So many people are perpetual children; I clean up other people's messes for a living, in fact. The idea of unending childhood in subservience to an inscutible "daddy" just makes me shudder, to be honest. The concept of slavery rankles me even worse.
"I'm impressed. You did a lot of good things, but unfortunately you're not good enough to get into heaven." God then turns to you and asks "Is this true? Do you know Jesus?"
Yep, that's exactly the message that puts the most bees in my bonnet. There's enough of that sort of clique behavior and favoritism on Earth--I shouldn't have to spend the afterlife "sucking up" to people as well. Any system that is founded on it is profoundly distasteful to me (I understand your points concerning all of us being sinners, and I agree; I just feel that in this case the cure is worse than the disease).
If your views are already in accord with being tight with Jesus, then more power to you; I'm not downing your choices at all. I just want to point out that some of us don't agree, and for those, the whole system seems arbitrary and pointless--worse than nihilism, because at least in an arbitrary universe you can make your own way in it.
Well, my understanding of Christianity is that truly accepting God is submission to His will in all things--basically assuming that we, as humans, are irredeemable sinners and that only through Christ can we not be doomed for all eternity, so we need to accept God's plan wholeheartedly and follow Christ... in essence, submit. The alternative is the eternity of hellfire that we all "deserve," right?
But for a non-Christian, there are shades of gray. We can try to be better people without abasing ourselves. We can try to make the world a better place ourselves, without assuming we are powerless in the hands of an omnipotent "Decider." We can feel that we don't necessarily want a system in which everything is about punishment--in fact, some might even believe that punishment for its own sake, as opposed to prevention, is counterproductive. All these views might be misguided, wrong, or even evil, from a Christian standpoint, but from the standpoint of a free (read: non-submitting), thinking person, the doors open up to other possibilities for running things. And the idea that other possibilities might not necessarily and automatically be "wrong" can be considered.
Wow, Kirth. This is my gold-frame post of the week on this thread. I think you have expressed your point of view clearly (seems clear to me, anyway).
My only comment is that I think submission has gotten a bad rap in today's society (at least in America). It has very negative connotations that I think are unfair. We may be "powerless" when compared to the infinite omnipotence of God but when compared to almost anything else, we as humans are pretty powerful. I'm not some mindless robot just because I acknowledge that God is all-powerful and wise. I still get to reason, examine, remember, learn and choose. In fact, scripture tells me that I'm in charge of every other creation of God's (not fellow humans, obviously). Taking care of our planet then becomes one of the tasks God has trusted me with - a pretty big responsibility. He also lent me a couple of little humans to raise and train, which is pretty cool but also scary and occassionally overwhelming responsibility. Just because I have someone to turn to who is ultimately wise and loving doesn't mean I have to choose to do so nor does it make me incapable of handling a vast number of tasks "on my own". After all, God also gave me my own mind and abilities to use - maybe so I wouldn't bug Him to help me with every little thing ;)Anyway, just wanted to uplift the virtue of submission before the discussion automatically inferred it is somehow a negative thing to be avoided.
|
|
Adulthood. Autonomy.
I don't feel that I am less of an adult because I am a Christian.
I also don't feel that I am not autonomous.I make my own decisions.
I understand what you are saying about cleaning up after people, but do you really feel like you are cleaning up after more Christians than any other group?
Slavery? Do you think that Christians are slaves to God?
|
|
There's enough of that sort of clique behavior and favoritism on Earth...
You are still choosing the "clique" in the afterlife.
Jesus died for everyone. I'm not sure how that shows favoritism. You're his "favorite" just as much as I am. It is still a choice that you make.
I also don't really feel like I am "sucking up". Sucking up still implies that people are trying harder and harder to get into heaven which is not really a concept in the New Testament.
What do people feel that they would be giving up "submitting to God's will"?Adulthood. Autonomy. So many people are perpetual children; I clean up other people's messes for a living, in fact. The idea of unending childhood in subservience to an inscutible "daddy" just makes me shudder, to be honest. The concept of slavery rankles me even worse.
Okay, too late with my submission is a good thing argument. Let me try to work from this direction...
I understand your view that submitting to God's will is comparable to perpetual childhood but I don't personally view it that way at all. I don't believe my relationship with Christ prevents my adulthood. I do view God as my Father because that was the analogy used in scripture. I personally like thinking of Him that way - someone who loves me and wants what's best for me. He's not standing over me with a club, waiting for me to screw up (good fathers don't act that way). He is understanding of my "age" and abilities. He tries to encourage me along the right path and discourage harmful or irrelevant behaviors. He is pleased to give me what I want (often even frivolous things) but feels sad when I defy Him and get myself into trouble. Even when I *am* in trouble though, He is always ready to help me and restore me. Sometimes He lets me suffer some of the natural consequences of my behavior before rescuing me, just so I'll remember next time just what foolishness I got myself into. The goal of any father, though, is to aid his children to grow and mature and then just revel in their maturity. Absolutely God is pleased to have us be spiritually mature, or adults, if you prefer.When first converting we use terminology like "babes in Christ" or a "young Christian" to express that the new believer's faith is untested. Just like with real-life children, at first we teach them things and they pretty much obey because they "have to" (they will be corrected for disobedience or will only get rewarded for specific obedience). This is how many "new" Christians are. At first, they tend to adopt beliefs and behaviors simply based on scripture or what their spiritual leader tells them is the proper thing. Later, as they gain experience, they can handle more complex issues and can develop a deeper richer character and faith. There's "milk" which the Bible describes as simple concepts and what most would consider "good" behavior/attitudes. Eventually, the Christian is supposed to tackle the "meat" of more complex theology and moral decisions that aren't clearly black and white. The more we learn, the more our attitudes and actions grow Christlike, then the closer we get to maturity. James 1:2-4 gives us insight into the Christian growth process, "Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds because you know that the testing of your faith develops perserverance. Perserverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything."
With all due humility, I don't consider myself a child in Christ. I consider myself an adult. I'm pretty old in earth years but both of my parents are still living and they're both still my parents (and therefore deserving of honor and acknowledgement of that fact). I make my own decisions and do whatever I choose to but it's still arguably largely based on how they raised me. I've been a Christian for several decades but God is still my father. I make my own decisions and do whatever I choose but it's absolutely based on how I feel He "raised" me to be. That doesn't make *me* shudder. It makes me feel loved and happy.
Aurora and Moff, I have to say, it's always a great pleasure discussing these things with you; I always enjoy your posts a great deal.
I like your image of God as an understanding parent-- I just don't like the underlying, "But you'll never, ever be a full grown-up, no matter how much you learn and grow, and your Uncle Jesus will always have to get you out of all the messes that you'll always get yourself into." THAT's the part that gets me.
Let me also point out, Aurora, that submission isn't an inherently bad thing. But I, personally, unfortunately require a choice in what I submit to (and NOT a falsely dichotomous choice), and being denied that choice rubs against everything I am. If God made me, as you attest, then He made me with unquenchable rebellion against that type of world-view; there's no free will there. Slavery, Moff, is the condition of choosing between (a) serving one master, not one of your choice, but the only one you're supposed to be in bondage to, and being rewarded; or else (b) failing to do so and being punished. A slave has no say in who the "master" is, and no input into how things are run.
In contrast, as a Buddhist to a large extent I submit myself to emptiness and non-being, and one day will do so maybe completely. But that release has no "parent" to make sure eveything is honky-dory, and has no "uncle" to do it for me. The Buddha provided nothing but a rough roadmap; I've got to do the hard part myself--in essence, every Buddhist has to be like Jesus all over again. It's a condition of total masterlessness. Is this arrogant? From a Christian standpoint, yes, but from where I sit it's quite humbling.
|
|
So much here and so little time to devote to it...
Aurora and Moff, I have to say, it's always a great pleasure discussing these things with you; I always enjoy your posts a great deal.
Likewise. Please be clear -- I am still looking forward to that beer together.
I like your image of God as an understanding parent-- I just don't like the underlying, "But you'll never, ever be a full grown-up, no matter how much you learn and grow, and your Uncle Jesus will always have to get you out of all the messes that you'll always get yourself into." THAT's the part that gets me.
This view (opinion? feeling?) is awfully close to one that I REALLY don't like. This is very similar to the "Now that I am a Christian I can do anything I want because Jesus will take care of it for me." If this is what you are saying, then yes -- I feel that it is very childish as well and not at all what God intended.
When did you become the perfect adult? (Rhetorical question.) This to me is rather similar to learning in general. I hope that I NEVER stop improving myself. I always want to become better at whatever I do. In many ways I truly hope that I never become "perfect" because I will then cease to be getting better. The "you'll never, ever be a full grown-up" feels kind of like a cop-out since I don't know what a "full grown-up" truly is. If you are saying that Jesus has taken away all responsibility and consequences for actions -- well I have never seen that at all Biblically and I really feel that it is a gross misinterpretation.
Let me also point out, Aurora, that submission isn't an inherently bad thing. But I, personally, unfortunately require a choice in what I submit to (and NOT a falsely dichotomous choice), and being denied that choice rubs against everything I am. If God made me, as you attest, then He made me with unquenchable rebellion against that type of world-view; there's no free will there.
Still not sure that I am getting the whole picture here. I am not sure what is meant by "falsely dichotomous" and I am not sure what decision you are being denied. Also, are you saying that there isn't free will because he (in theory) made you with "unquenchable rebellion"?
I really feel like I am missing something here.
Slavery, Moff, is the condition of choosing between (a) serving one master, not one of your choice, but the only one you're supposed to be in bondage to, and being rewarded; or else (b) failing to do so and being punished. A slave has no say in who the "master" is, and no input into how things are run.
I still don't see it as "bondage". I get to do everything that I would normally do.
I understand what you are saying about not being able to choose as your "master" (still don't see it as slavery). It's kind of a silly question -- but what would you want in your "master"? What qualities does does God not have that you wish he did?
In contrast, as a Buddhist to a large extent I submit myself to emptiness and non-being, and one day will do so maybe completely. But that release has no "parent" to make sure eveything is honky-dory, and has no "uncle" to do it for me. The Buddha provided nothing but a rough roadmap; I've got to do the hard part myself--in essence, every Buddhist has to be like Jesus all over again. It's a condition of total masterlessness. Is this arrogant? From a Christian standpoint, yes, but from where I sit it's quite humbling.
No, I don't think that it is necessarily "arrogant". The Bible is little more than a "rough roadmap". Apparently accepting Jesus is a lot harder than it would initially appear. I'm not sure how "emptiness and non-being" is a reward. And, from what little you mentioned about Buddhism, I was placed here by this super cosmic being that is part of everything ultimately as a test -- and if I fail, I will continue to do it until I succeed. Who makes this determination? Sounds quite a bit like a "parent" to me.
Ok, that came across a bit harsher than intended. I guess that my point is that there doesn't seem to be all that much of a "contrast".
Capital punishment is th' reason I have a job.
Please be clear -- I am still looking forward to that beer together.
Me, too.
This view (opinion? feeling?) is awfully close to one that I REALLY don't like. This is very similar to the "Now that I am a Christian I can do anything I want because Jesus will take care of it for me." If this is what you are saying, then yes -- I feel that it is very childish as well and not at all what God intended.
No argument from me, obviously!
If you are saying that Jesus has taken away all responsibility and consequences for actions -- well I have never seen that at all Biblically and I really feel that it is a gross misinterpretation.
No; what I'm saying is that, from a Christian perspective, you are forced to rely on him forever, no matter what responsibility and consequences you are capable of handling.
I understand what you are saying about not being able to choose as your "master" (still don't see it as slavery). It's kind of a silly question -- but what would you want in your "master"? What qualities does does God not have that you wish he did?
He should be clear and consistent, for one--not just veiled hints in moldering tomes. His existence should be discoverable by men using reason, then, not just by faith. And if He's really omnipotent, then he'd better daggone well be omnibenevolent as well; if not, He's abusing his power over man, as Kahoolin alluded. And I'll second the motion that any God who uses his power over the universe and His creations in inconsistent and sometimes cruel ways is not one that I'd willingly serve.
And, from what little you mentioned about Buddhism, I was placed here by this super cosmic being that is part of everything ultimately as a test -- and if I fail, I will continue to do it until I succeed. Who makes this determination? Sounds quite a bit like a "parent" to me.
No; you misunderstand. From a Buddhist persepective, no super-being placed you here. "Here" IS the super-being, and so are you. There's no seperate "God." It's not a parent putting you through hoops, it's you yourself stopping going through hoops. It's not an external test at all; it's more like an alcoholic stopping drinking, even though he craves alcohol.
Ok, that came across a bit harsher than intended. I guess that my point is that there doesn't seem to be all that much of a "contrast".
Depends on your point of view, of course. What matters is that I'm happy with the path I've chosen, and you're obviously quite content with your faith, and yet you and I can still discuss them both without feeling threatened and without seeking to marginalize one another. THAT'S why I'm here. It's refreshing to interact in joy and in friendship with people who disagree with you on fundamental questions. (If, on the other hand, this forum were a means of enforcing certain viewpoints rather than encouraging free discussion of them, it would be counterproductive and harmful--and I'd be long gone.)
What I don't like is when people triumph their rejection of faith, without realising it takes just as much faith to be an atheist (I would say more) as it does to belong to a religion.
Why?
...
Shiny, how many aliases do you have? Wait... I get it. Shiny is everyone. Deep down, we are all Mr. Shiny.
|
|
No; you misunderstand. From a Buddhiast persepective, no super-being placed you here. Here IS the super-being, and so are you. There's no seperate "God." It's not a parent putting you through hoops, it's you yourself stopping going through hoops. It's not an external test at all; it's more like an alocoholic stopping drinking, even though he craves alcohol.
I just really don't get this. If this is true, then I must really be at odds with myself. It also feels like while I am not cruel, I really am cruel and heartless and masochistic because of what I am doing to myself.
He should be clear and consistent, for one--not just veiled hints in moldering tomes. His existence should be discoverable by men using reason, then, not just by faith. And if He's really omnipotent, then he'd better daggone well be omnibenevolent as well; if not, He's abusing his power over man, as Kahoolin alluded. And I'll second the motion that any God who uses his power over the universe and His creations in inconsistent and sometimes cruel ways is not one that I'd willingly serve.
Isn't Buddhism "veiled hints in moldering tomes"? I feel that he is omnibenevolent. I also feel that he is consistent and never cruel. I will admit that I might have "rose colored glasses" but I think that he is far more consistent in how he treats everything than not. In addition, "consistent" is hard to define. Usually, I feel that many people define "consistent" as "fair" which isn't usually the case.
Depends on your point of view, of course. What matters is that I'm happy with the path I've chosen, and you're obviously quite content with your faith, and yet you and I can still discuss them both without feeling threatened and without seeking to marginalize one another. THAT'S why I'm here. It's refreshing to interact in joy and in friendship with people who disagree with you on fundamental questions. (If, on the other hand, this forum were a means of enforcing certain viewpoints rather than encouraging free discussion of them, it would be counterproductive and harmful--and I'd be long gone.)
I'd be gone in a heartbeat as well.
Nope, don't feel threatened and I hope that you don't either.
I like this thread because it helps me better define what I believe but I also feel like I need to know what the rest of the world thinks Christians believe. And that is especially informative.
I just really don't get this. If this is true, then I must really be at odds with myself. It also feels like while I am not cruel, I really am cruel and heartless and masochistic because of what I am doing to myself.
The alcoholic anology is the best I can do. They for sure don't drink because they're cruel and heartless, but they do hurt themselves.
Isn't Buddhism "veiled hints in moldering tomes"?Nice one! But because there's not a "holy book" that tells you what you can and cannot do in life, the parallel is inexact.
I feel that he is omnibenevolent. I also feel that he is consistent and never cruel. I will admit that I might have "rose colored glasses" but I think that he is far more consistent in how he treats everything than not. In addition, "consistent" is hard to define. Usually, I feel that many people define "consistent" as "fair" which isn't usually the case.
Job? To test one's servants like that is not benevolent, in my book; it's cruel. And He doesn't treat everyone that way, which is inconsistent. And I've mentioned this before, but to give some people the ability to discern His existence (as many Christians say they "know" there's a God), while denying the same to others, is likewise inconsistent--and self-defeating, if He really exists, and really wants us to love him and follow him.
|
|
The alcoholic anology is the best I can do. They for sure don't drink because they're cruel and heartless, but they do hurt themselves.
Except that I feel that there is cruelty in the world. And if I am everything and everything is me, then that makes me cruel as well.
Also, if the greater me is like an alcoholic that seems to like to hurt himself and can't stop -- well I'm not sure that I like that analogy either.
Job? To test one's servants like that is not benevolent, in my book; it's cruel. And He doesn't treat everyone that way, which is inconsistent. And I've mentioned this before, but to give some people the ability to discern His existence (as many Christians say they "know" there's a God), while denying the same to others, is likewise inconsistent--and self-defeating, if He really exists, and really wants us to love him and follow him.
Again, "consistent" is a hard thing to define. The Bible says that he won't allow anything to happen to us that we can't handle (James). We are not clones. That would be consistent. We do not come from the same backgrounds, look the same, have the same interests and we don't have the same abilities. (How boring would that be? Or how scary would that be if everyone was The Eldritch Mr. Shiny?) Very little is truly "consistent" and yet we somehow expect God to be far more consistent than anything else. He will consistently not throw anything our way that we cannot handle -- which includes Job.
Also, I believe that he will "consistently" reveal himself to people when people are ready to "see" him (whatever form that takes). I also don't see that God denies anyone -- we might deny Him.
Also, if the greater me is like an alcoholic that seems to like to hurt himself and can't stop -- well I'm not sure that I like that analogy either...
Very little is truly "consistent" and yet we somehow expect God to be far more consistent than anything else. He will consistently not throw anything our way that we cannot handle -- which includes Job.
Also, I believe that he will "consistently" reveal himself to people when people are ready to "see" him (whatever form that takes). I also don't see that God denies anyone -- we might deny Him.
And so it's all boiled down to a matter of personal preference; I like black licorice, and my wife despises it. She thinks Monte Python is funny, but it doesn't make me laugh ("Airplane" does, and my wife can sit through it wooden-faced). You find some of the concepts of Buddhism creepy and disturbing, but the practice of it has given me a calm and empathy that I lacked before. I find the God of Abraham to be abusive and domineering, and hope fervently that I'm right that there is no such being; you find him fair, reasonable, and all-inclusive, and give homage to Him for it. I like that; I like that we can each have our view without having the other's forced on us; I like that we can disagree and still enjoy talking about things we disagree on.
What I don't like is when people triumph their rejection of faith, without realising it takes just as much faith to be an atheist (I would say more) as it does to belong to a religion.
For my part, I disagree with that last sentiment. I promise there is no triumph intended in what I'm about to say. I speak not with pride, but merely to clarify yet another generality that paints a group of seperate individuals in one dull hue... people who have not submitted to the way of the majority.
I'm sure atheists have varied reasons and techniques for being the way they are, but I'll try to explain my own take and let you be the judge, as judgement seems quite important to some. My atheism is rather low-fuel and observational. I don't expend large quantities of faith in my not seeing what I don't see. I don't spend my time arguing the bible or any holy text because their writings, to me, are just that. I don't argue the existence of God because I neither see nor intuit a singular divine force exerting moral rules upon man and creation. Men control men. The heavens reside.
Creation itself, whose lawful architecture stuns silent the brightest and wisest, does not, for me, imply a purpose, a beginning, or an end. It seems strange to me that some should possess such hubris as to consider God to be a man, simian-shaped, in a world teeming to bursting with myriad life forms.
If it can be said that I, an atheist, have faith in a belief, then it is the belief that most people like to pretend to know things they don't know, and many of them are natural storytellers. A smaller set of this faction seeks to exert controls upon the behaviors and philosophies of others. If squirrels know how to frolick in the field and bury nuts without aid of scripture or shamans reading them the divine acts, I don't fear for the future of my soul, or worry that I might actually have one. I go to my grave without killing, raping, or stealing not because I fear eternal punishment, but because I am a decent enough fellow. I go, knowing that like many, I'll have fearfully wished all along that death was not an inevitable to cut my curiosity short, and that this life was only what I dared make of it.
|
|
I like black licorice. I think Monte Python is funny. I don't really get "Airplane" at all. (Naked Gun I enjoy -- most of the rest of those I just don't get at all.)
I don't know that I feel that Buddhism is "creepy and disturbing". I just don't get why I am doing this to myself (assuming that is correct). It also seems like less and less of me is going the way I would like myself to go and it appears that I am losing control of myself.
Just out of curiosity (and don't feel you need to answer) -- is your wife Buddhist?
|
|
If squirrels know how to frolick in the field and bury nuts without aid of scripture or shamans reading them the divine acts, I don't fear for the future of my soul, or worry that I might actually have one.
You had a lot of interesting points. Some of which I can understand. Some of which I disagree with. But the quote above bothers me a bit. Even if I wasn't a Christian, I think that I would still feel that I was more than a squirrel. (At the same time, maybe the squirrel feels that he is more than a man...)
Just out of curiosity (and don't feel you need to answer) -- is your wife Buddhist?
Don't mind answering, and no; she's Unitarian, if anything. Mostly I think she finds it arbitrary and silly to try to codify something we should be living, and I applaud her for that. She likes that Zen practice makes me calmer and more empathetic, and she is saddened that the Southern U.S. brand of evangelical "Christianity" seems to be making her youngest sister more troubled, anxious, and close-minded--but she neither blames nor credits either religion; she just looks at the people, and the results. She owns a nice Bible that she's read and admired Jesus' teachings in, and she's read the works of Thich Nhat Hahn and admired them, too. Her other sister is a Pastafarian, and my wife loves and admires the Flying Spaghetti Monster, too. And my wife loves me, which proves she's far more tolerant than any religion could expect! But she doesn't game, and she actually finds it a waste of her time, which is why she's not participating here with us.
If squirrels know how to frolick in the field and bury nuts without aid of scripture or shamans reading them the divine acts, I don't fear for the future of my soul, or worry that I might actually have one.You had a lot of interesting points. Some of which I can understand. Some of which I disagree with. But the quote above bothers me a bit. Even if I wasn't a Christian, I think that I would still feel that I was more than a squirrel. (At the same time, maybe the squirrel feels that he is more than a man...)
Sorry, Moff... no offense intended. It's a personal point of view.
Christianity itself was no target of my squirrel comment. It bothers you that I don't feel superior to a squirrel? My belief is one of equality with the natural world around me and that seems somehow wrong? Innacurate or flying in the face of clear reason? I don't think squirrels are so fantastic, really (I'm more of a chipmunk man). I just don't think man is all that fantastic either. I am to expect that when I die squirrels go on to become begonia fertilizer, but for the gift of my innate human greatness, I go on to spend an eternity in a place without porn and twinkies?
Don't you worry... I'm not the poster child for humility. ;)
Now, I'm a fairly talented sort. I can write a book or compose a song, I can pay my own taxes and grasp multivariable calc. That all said, I cannot fly like a bird, and why so then should I understand myself to be their superior? Because I can kill them and fry them up in herbs and spices a hundred different ways? Because I'm a carpenter and I could build them a birdhouse?
If I thought myself better because of my complexity then we should all worship every strong storm as a marvel of tiny factors lined up just so to form one sweeping force able to change the lives of millions, and knock down my birdhouse. Ever have a really complex girlfriend, who through her own self-absorbed antics, made you want to find a deep river and join it? Now compare her to your favorite, simple-minded pet. I've found heaven in the simple and hell in the multi-layered. Sentient complexity is a burden that adds much responsibility, so far as I'm concerned. If I have any province over the beasts of the wildness and the wet, it is as their tending warden. A parent making sure that his child does not attempt to cross a street created, and only fully understood, by parents.
Wow. I just got up on a saturday morning and was blown away by the recent posts in this thread. Lady Aurora and Moff, your descriptions of the loving God as a father figure were very convincing and passionate, even beautiful. I feel like I'm actually starting to grasp the feeling of being a Christian rather than just hearing the rules.
Kirth, nearly everything you said seemed like it was being drawn from my own thoughts. What you were saying about just not getting it, and being made with unquenchable rebellion is exactly how I feel. Exactly.
Jade, you are a strange and poetic person ;)
I wish we were all in the same place so we could have a beer :)
But the quote above bothers me a bit. Even if I wasn't a Christian, I think that I would still feel that I was more than a squirrel. (At the same time, maybe the squirrel feels that he is more than a man...)
Consider the evolution of man and chimpanzee from our common ancestor: Chimpanzees have gone through more generations than humans (owing mostly to their shorter life-span), but more than that they've developed more 'positive traits' - chimpanzees are less like our common ancestor than we are. They're more evolved than us! Of course, we didn't need to adapt so much physically, because we've adapted technologically. Who's really better? I myself am a fan of intelligence, but I'll admit I'm biased.
What is there to interpret in "Thou Shall not kill"?Read the rest of the thread; there were a couple of pages on that earlier. We all eat. Many of us live in nations with capital punishment. We all live in nations that have gone to war.
There is a G-d and a fixed view. We call it Torah, you may call it Old and New Testament, or the Koran. Same G-d. Same basic messages. I can't be held responsible for the Japanese and their beliefs. And it is, in fact irrelevant to the discussion at hand.On the contrary; rather than being irrelevant, that's half the point of the discussion: to allow some of us with different beliefs to appreciate those of others, even if they don't necessarily agree. Your "fixed views" and G-d differ from other peoples'. If you'd like, feel free to start a new thread for "only Abrahamic adherents allowed!" and exclude the Japanese and the atheists and anyone else you like. Then you can start from the standpoint that you're right and everyone else is wrong. Here, we've all of us been at least trying to accept the fact that others might not agree, and we've been doing it for quite a number of pages.
So much for a civil discussion then? Are you familiar with the term Straw Man? Seems like you are.
Please by all means continue to state my views for me. It's interesting how completely wrong you are on all counts. I have continually put in MY beliefs and MY opinions based on them. The only person I said was wrong, I specifically explained why he was. Sorry, but you can't read a work of literature and fully understand it, if you ignore the purpose of what is written.
Sorry, but you can't read a work of literature and fully understand it, if you ignore the purpose of what is written.
"The old man is just an old man, and the sea is just the sea." We seem to be on opposite wavelengths here. All I'm saying is that a person can take something else out of any work that wasn't "intended" to be there. That's what modern art is all about--you may not like it, but some people do. Each viewer takes what they want out of the experience, even if the artist was merely expressing his angst over lack of a heroin fix. Back to the original topic, if someone finds a message of humility and redemption in Judas' final act, then more power to them--even if that's not what the "purpose" was.
P.S. We had a discussion on the popularity of the "staw man" catch-phrase a few pages back--did you see that one? Wasn't sure if you were being tongue-in-cheek.
Jade, your post was quite lovely and poetic. Thanks for sharing your views!
BTW, my supreme pride and arrogance forces me to reiterate...I'm waay better than a squirrel! ;P
I know this is coming from left field and completely off topic but ...
I've own the past seasons of Magnum,P.I. and was watching an episode the other day where Magnum was facing an ethical dilemna. A man was on trial for the murder of his second wife. His first wife had been murdered and the man, named Greg, had been tried and found innocent of the crime (he was, in fact, guilty of the first murder). Now Greg's being tried for the second murder. Magnum is a witness in the trial and has acquired an audio tape of the second wife's death moments. On the tape Greg confesses while beating his second wife that he murdered his first wife and gloats "I got away with it once, I'll do it again!". Of course, with the laws of double jeopardy, his confession is useless - he cannot be retried for the first murder. The audio tape later reveals that Greg leaves his second wife beaten but alive and she later (after he has left the premises) shoots herself. Greg is innocent of the second crime. Magnum is not obligated by law to reveal what he knows or even that he possesses the tape (the defense is unaware of the tape's existance). If Magnum stays silent about the evidence of Greg's innocence in the second wife's murder, Greg will be convicted of her murder. Though he is innocent of this particular murder, he *is* a murderer and would be punished accordingly. However, if Magnum presents the evidence, Greg will most assuredly be aquitted of the second wife's murder and will go free. Justice will be done but a murderer (guilty of his first wife's murder) will be walking the streets, possibly open to marry & murder yet again.
I was wondering what people with different belief systems would do and, more importantly, *why* would you choose to reveal/conceal the evidence?
Sorry, but you can't read a work of literature and fully understand it, if you ignore the purpose of what is written."The old man is just an old man, and the sea is just the sea." We seem to be on opposite wavelengths here. All I'm saying is that a person can take something else out of any work that wasn't "intended" to be there. That's what modern art is all about--you may not like it, but some people do. Each viewer takes what they want out of the experience, even if the artist was merely expressing his angst over lack of a heroin fix. Back to the original topic, if someone finds a message of humility and redemption in Judas' final act, then more power to them--even if that's not what the "purpose" was.
The Gospels weren't written as literature, they were written as history. The purpose was to present the facts as the writers' perceived them; the interpretation is up to you. Your reaction to Judas's death and the cirumstances surrounding it are your own. What you get out of it can't be wrong unless you mess up the facts (for example, with an improper or inadequate translation).
... All I'm saying is that a person can take something else out of any work that wasn't "intended" to be there.
...if someone finds a message of humility and redemption in Judas' final act, then more power to them--even if that's not what the "purpose" was.
There's no problem with Kahoolin's unusual interpretation of Judas' final act and I agree with your statement that he's free to interpret it any way he chooses. Of course, as he has already emphasized, this was a reaction by a 10 yr old boy - not exactly a deeply considered logical examination of the story. That being said, what's "wrong" with this particular interpretation is that it is completely opposite of how the overwhelming majority would interpret these acts and that rare interpretation was then used as an impetus to resent or be offended by the character of God. The point of arguing against the humble/repentant Judas conclusion and the accompanying characterization of an unfair, overly harsh God; was that, since Judas' final act is viewed completely oppositely by the overwhelming majority then it should be considered that his conclusions about God's character is also opposite of what the overwhelming majority would claim was scripture's intent.
It's like someone saying, "I respect Jeffrey Dalmer and the loving way he disposed of some folks, then so honorably consumed their flesh. It just goes to show you what a lousy justice system exists in America that such a wonderful individual was tried and convicted - treated like a criminal!" The overwhelming majority, regardless of their opinion of the American justice system, would agree that in the Dalmer case justice was indeed done and we, as a society, are well rid of such a heinous murderer and cannibal. While the person is free to interpret Dalmer's acts any way he chooses; we, the "majority", have equal right to question his conclusions about the American justice system.I'm not saying that the majority is always right. I'm just saying that when a person interprets something completely differently than everyone else, that person should examine *why* it is that everyone seems to believe differently. I'm not accusing Kahoolin of failure to examine his own reasoning. I'm just saying that as a general rule - interpretations that differ vastly from the majority need to be questioned. This should pose no problem to the person with the unique interpretation, since logic demands one should be able to defend his/her views, especially when they conflict with most others.
It's like someone saying, "I respect Jeffrey Dalmer and the loving way he disposed of some folks, then so honorably consumed their flesh. It just goes to show you what a lousy justice system exists in America that such a wonderful individual was tried and convicted - treated like a criminal!" I'm not saying that the majority is always right. I'm just saying that as a general rule - interpretations that differ vastly from the majority need to be questioned. This should pose no problem to the person with the unique interpretation, since logic demands one should be able to defend his/her views, especially when they conflict with most others.
I'm not sure I disagree with you, but I'm also not sure your argument necessarily applies in this case. (1) As pointed out, "the overwhelming majority" does not agree that suicide is "against God;" only the overwhelming majority of Abrahamic adherents. Those of other beliefs sometimes see it differently. The fact that Judas is a biblical character does not force the reader to change his or her views--he or she can be aware that Judas is *supposed* to be a nasty guy, but choose to feel that 100% of his actions need not automatically be viewed as 100% evil.
Everyone: please understand I'm not saying that I read the gospel and think that Judas is supposed to be a swell fellow. What I AM saying is that if a person finds beauty in his final act, despite the fact that it wasn't written that way, why berate it? Kahoolin may have changed his mind, but, really, what would be the harm if not?
(2) And that's my second point; murder inevitaby causes harm to at least one other person. Suicide need not necessarily do so--the harm to others is in their emotional distress over the act--but as seen in historical Japan, families might be proud of someone for their decision to die with dignity, rather than wailing over it. I know this is hard to accept emotionally for people indoctinated into a "culture of life" or whatever you want to call it, but that doesn't make those people evil by their standards. And since you mention legal systems rather than simply religious ones, I'll bring up the Bill of Rights and its intent as a shield against the "tyranny of the majority." The concept is, if you're not hurting anyone by your acts, then you don't have to justify them to the majority.
In the U.S., suicide is currently viewed as harmful (and it is, from that cultural perspective) and is illegal, and in the present time there is widespread prejudice against it--but that doesn't make it automatically unethical in all situations to all people, only currently illegal. Murder is illegal everywhere there is law, and has been in the past whenever there was law--and also is, and has been, under any viable ethical system I can think of as well. Thinking that a biblical character's suicide might have been an act of apology does not hurt anyone, nor is it illegal, nor unethical (unless your definition of ethics is exceptionally narrow indeed).
I was wondering what people with different belief systems would do and, more importantly, *why* would you choose to reveal/conceal the evidence?
I've mentioned before that I disagree strongly with the idea that "punishment" can somehow balance cosmic scales and make things right. It manifestly does not. I'm not even sure that it's a deterrent to others; prisons are full of people who weren't deterred.
But what a capital conviction would do, in this case, is prevent this Greg guy from ever murdering anyone again, once he was executed. If the incontrovertable fact is that he has killed, and tried to do so again, and shows every sign of wanting to do so in the future... well, that needs to be prevented. Our ability to "rehabilitate" him is essentially non-existent. But executing him does solve that problem.
It is my personal belief that executing Greg also hurts the people doing it on a spiritual level, but it hurts them less than it would hurt Greg's future third wife if he kills her, too.
...But what a capital conviction would do, in this case, is prevent this Greg guy from ever murdering anyone again, once he was executed. If the incontrovertable fact is that he has killed, and tried to do so again, and shows every sign of wanting to do so in the future... well, that needs to be prevented. Our ability to "rehabilitate" him is essentially non-existent. But executing him does solve that problem.
...
Thanks for sharing your view.
Just for the record, I wasn't trying to imply one way or the other what Greg's specific "punishment" would be, whether it would be execution or jail sentence or whatever. I don't want to get overly distracted by such details. The point is, if the evidence that clears him of the second murder is suppressed, Greg will be convicted of the second murder and the court will deal with him in whatever manner the "state" deams appropriate. If the evidence *is* presented, Greg will be acquitted of the crime and will be free. It's likely that Greg will kill again but that's not really the point either. It's really a matter of court justice versus ethics. Greg escaped conviction on his first crime - is it "fair" to allow him to be convicted of the second, even though he's technically innocent of the crime (at least in this case)?At any rate, you answered the question, Kirth, from your perspective. Thanks again for sharing.
It's likely that Greg will kill again but that's not really the point either.
Heh. For me, that's the ENTIRE point.
I was wondering what people with different belief systems would do and, more importantly, *why* would you choose to reveal/conceal the evidence?
Hmm, Magnum is in quite a pickle!
I think if I was Magnum, besides having an awesome moustache I would see it as my ethical responsibility to conceal the evidence of the second wife's suicide. I have evidence that justice failed the first time around, as it sometimes sadly does, and the fact that he may not have actually killed his second wife doesn't change the fact that he DID kill his first and was not punished for it. So even though the punishment for murder the man receives is not in truth related to the events of the second wife's death, it IS related to the death of the first woman. Justice is done in the end, albeit too late to save the poor second wife. The fact that the man is being punished for something he didn't do is to me balanced out by the fact that if justice had been done earlier he may not have been able to commit the second crime in the first place. The system failed the first time and now is a chance to correct that.
Incidentally, what did Magnum do?
On suicide (and a little bit OT), I don't think it's reasonable to suggest, as modern psychology does, that all suicides are mentally ill or depressed in some way. I think sometimes it can be a conscious and, for lack of a better word, sane decision.
You can't tell me that every samurai who committed seppuku or every early Christian martyr was mentally ill. They had valid reasons for choosing to die. And they did choose. All either of the above had to do to avoid death was betray their principles and thy chose not to.
I will admit though that in a culture that fears death as much as ours does, most suicides are probably mentally ill people.
I was wondering what people with different belief systems would do and, more importantly, *why* would you choose to reveal/conceal the evidence?
I would reveal the evidence. For me, truth is more important that justice. Justice will likely follow truth anyway - he's gonna be stigmatized even if he wasn't indicted for murder, and he's still gonna be convicted of attempted murder for the second wife.
What benefits the group is what is right, not what some omnipotent being in the sky tells me to do.Who/What determines what benefits the group? There are a LOT of things that I could argue that could benefit the "group" that I personally don't think is "right". In many cases, I could argue that murder is "right" if they are getting rid of people that are not benefitting the group.
Very dangerous line of thinking down that road...
I agree. But it is also how I determine if an action is right or wrong. That statement above is the cornerstone of my ethics. Sure, I could justify a lot of things with that, many would not be considered "good" by the majority. This does not bother me, really. I honestly don't care what a person thinks of my actions, only what the eventual outcome is. I'm not saying that I completely agree with your answer, I have no desire, reason, nor inclination to kill anyone.
Also, dangerous thinking can come from any road. Like this one: If the infidels/nonbelievers are going to hell anyway, why not just get rid of them now and spare them a whole lifetime of sin? I believe that line of logic was one of the ones that was used to try to convince people in the middle ages that the crusaides were OK.
I'm talking about going further than that, though. People on disability, welfare, etc. These are people that are a huge drain on society and I don't necessarily see how they are "benefitting" the "group". (I don't really feel this way, just showing how the argument could go.)
Who am I, or anyone else, to say that the disabled are useless? Maybe little Tommy in the wheelchair can't work in the fields, but he's good at speaking and can motivate people to be better than they are (think those cheesy people you laughed at in high school and later developed deep respect for). Suzy only has one arm, but she uses the one she has to write beautiful poetry on a great many topics. Are these people phisically disabled? Yes. Are they useful? Looks like it to me.