Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 4/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Arbitrary Salvation?
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1334 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 31 of 37 (273385)
12-27-2005 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Faith
12-27-2005 10:53 PM


Re: Is that real belief you are talking about?
just trying to help, no need to get all middle school on me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Faith, posted 12-27-2005 10:53 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Faith, posted 12-28-2005 12:05 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
Madfish
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 37 (273392)
12-27-2005 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Ben!
12-27-2005 10:21 PM


quote:
A good relativist might tell you that "justness" IS arbitrary. The reason you find it just is because your arbitrarily selected justness conflicts with that you view.
Perhaps I did. If "justness" is indeed arbitrary, then i'm not sure how much room for conversation there is on it.
quote:
For example, you seem to believe that an individual should be judged for their actions, not those of their ancestors. Or that an individual shouldn't be blamed for things that they cannot help but do (i.e. use fallen reason).
Yes, I do not think it is fair to judge people for things that are beyond their control. Is that view arbitrary? I really don't know, but i'm sure a case can be made that it is.
Do you think the situation I described is arbitrary as well?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Ben!, posted 12-27-2005 10:21 PM Ben! has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by lfen, posted 12-27-2005 11:50 PM Madfish has not replied
 Message 37 by Ben!, posted 12-28-2005 7:11 AM Madfish has not replied

  
Madfish
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 37 (273394)
12-27-2005 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Faith
12-27-2005 10:47 PM


Re: Is that real belief you are talking about?
I don't accept what you say because it is more of the same. It doesn't make sense to me. I have to trust my own thinking process. =/
Thanks for taking part in the discussion though. I wish you the best as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Faith, posted 12-27-2005 10:47 PM Faith has not replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4667 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 34 of 37 (273399)
12-27-2005 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Madfish
12-27-2005 11:16 PM


Hi Madfish,
I was just peeking in on my vacation and caught this thread and decided to stick my 2 cents in.
Yes, I do not think it is fair to judge people for things that are beyond their control. Is that view arbitrary? I really don't know, but i'm sure a case can be made that it is.
Do you think the situation I described is arbitrary as well?
Religion as social control is in one sense arbitrary yet a functional tradition. Religion is an expression of pre scientific and even pre logical humans so in that sense it's arbitrary also but the central needs of the society are greater than those of any individual member of it and control by guilt has been proven effective, no?
Belief is necessary for social cohesiveness and smooths the task of those in power to maintain the laws and social traditions. Society has used this to maintain itself and that is usually a good thing though it also has resulted in various sorts of persecutions and injustice of course.
Human beings are rational only on occasion and justice is an ideal that can vary from one person to the next.
Yes Christianity like all religions is irrational and imperfect like everything else humans have created. On reflection none of this should surprise us, though growing up and out of the myths of childhood can be traumatic at times.
I'll leave you with another good book to supplement Who Wrote the Bible:
How the Bible Became a Book
by William M. Schniedewind.
The irrationalities of any given religion are not objectionable to the majority of the believers in the religion or they wouldn't remain believers. You find what makes the most sense to you and live the best you can. I've largely lost interest in arguing with believers whether they be religious or believe in grey aliens visiting earth, etc. But I wish you the best as you carry on.
Cheers,
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Madfish, posted 12-27-2005 11:16 PM Madfish has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 35 of 37 (273402)
12-28-2005 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by arachnophilia
12-27-2005 10:55 PM


Re: Is that real belief you are talking about?
Who do you think you are?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by arachnophilia, posted 12-27-2005 10:55 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by arachnophilia, posted 12-28-2005 12:21 AM Faith has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1334 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 36 of 37 (273406)
12-28-2005 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Faith
12-28-2005 12:05 AM


Re: Is that real belief you are talking about?
seriously faith, what is going on here? i wasn't trying to offend you. i'm sorry if i did. i was just trying to help.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Faith, posted 12-28-2005 12:05 AM Faith has not replied

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1389 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 37 of 37 (273432)
12-28-2005 7:11 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Madfish
12-27-2005 11:16 PM


The arbitrariness of assigning responsibility
Hi Madfish,
Do you think the situation I described is arbitrary as well?
Just to clear up by what I mean by 'arbitrary'... it doesn't mean "not caused", but simply that there was no ultimate reason why any specific system must be used. Others could suffice; it just turned out that circumstances in the past led to the choice of one.
OK, now on to my thoughts about your question. I do think the situation as you described is arbitrary. It happens to be a situation where I lean towards another view. I say "lean", because ... it's something I've not had to apply in practice, only in thought. And I must be honest with myself and admit that there's a large gap between believing something and actually applying it.
There's two parts. First, I believe that understanding life as consisting of "individuals" is one arbitrary way of looking at life. Another way is to look at lineages, to look at species and descendant hierarchies. Or, maybe more clearly, to look at genes. Think of people as survival mechanisms for genes. Then you can see that, although the genes change their bodies, they persist from generation to generation. The "individual" is but a transport, but a temporary carrier in the chain of a gene persisting itself. We are collections of genes, all in a symbiotic union attempting to persist themselves.
If you look at it in this way, punishment for your ancestor's deeds might make more sense. You are, in many ways, the continuation of your ancestor. And you are, in many ways, responsible for that action.
I think individuality comes from consciousness. We don't feel responsible for what is outside our consciousness. But if we let go of consciousness as the determining factor of what is "me" or "you", then the 'change in policy' that I'm describing above doesn't seem so strange. I personally let go of consciousness as determining 'me' or 'you' a long time ago. To me, consciousness holds no causal power in action; it is more like a sixth 'sense', a post-hoc review of what's going on inside, than anything else.
The second part is again about responsibility. Turns out this is the crux of the discussion of free will I've never followed through with holmes. If you believe that consciousness is not the determining factor of behavior, then I believe the best way to 'dole out' responsiblity is not by 'decisions' (i.e. conscious choices), but by actions and the possibility that they will act that way again. If you have a penchant for hurting others, whether it's due to what we call mental illness, what we call bad attitude, or what we call physical unrestraint, I think it doesn't matter. After all, your effect within the society is not measured by what's going on inside your body, but rather what your actions are. The only reason what's going on inside your body matters is simply to help predict what actions you might take in the future, and thus what effects to the society you might produce.
So, contrary to what I guess as your view, a consciousness-centered view of responsibility, I have a non-consciousness-centered view. I believe it to be much more pragmatic. I have no idea whether it's a sustainable way to live; I will learn that better as I understand people better. And without knowing if it's a sustainable way to live, it's not very fair to call your view "arbitrary"; I'm guessing. But I do believe it is a more "reasonable" or "useful" way to dole out responsiblity.
Sorry for the long post. Feel free to poke holes in the thinking; I see plenty enough reasonable objections anyway. And thanks for your thoughts; good to see you posting.
Ben

Walk for a cure - support the JDF!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Madfish, posted 12-27-2005 11:16 PM Madfish has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024