Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
3 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: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Euthypro Dilemna
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2321 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 121 of 181 (539723)
12-19-2009 3:31 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by iano
12-15-2009 6:03 AM


Hi iano,
I wonder: did you happen to read my one previous post in this thread? Do you consider the issues I raise there to be off-topic, or simply unworthy of a response? That post speaks directly to something that would pull us out of this circle you seem to be stuck in.
iano writes:
As far as practical application goes? All that needs doing now (given the above) is to cite examples of what God finds good (ie: that to which his flavour attachs when he does it, or when that of him in us expresses itself in our actions). You now have your practical examples: the flavours we call kindness, selflessness, fairness, patience, love, etc. All 'good' - all of God.
Other "practical examples" of "flavours" I've seen attributed to "what God finds good" include: killing Jews, killing Moslems, killing Christians, killing apostates (from whatever faith), killing "witches", killing doctors who perform abortions, limiting the rights and education of women, discriminating against gays (or perhaps imprisoning or killing them), allowing child molesters to remain priests (with continuing access to children), destruction of cities by means that most people consider to be "natural disasters", convincing poor people via television and radio broadcasts to send their money to a "ministry" that only enriches the "ministers", ...
Do you see the problem in your notion of "practical application" based on "God's will" (or "command" or "flavour" or whatever you want to call it)? There is this unavoidable question of how to resolve the conflicting claims about "what does God want / will / command", "what would Jesus do", "what does the Bible say about...", and so on. If we are left only to the resources provided by faith, it boils down to having to choose which human-mediated interpretation to accept.
Then, having accepted a given interpretation (by whatever rationale), it's possible to assert divine authority as the basis for subsequent actions. The fact that such an assertion carries any weight at all is especially problematic, especially for non-believers.
iano writes:
Modulous writes:
If I am deciding whether or not euthanising an elderly relative how do I decide if it is a good thing to do?
Whether or not it is gods will!
How can we know what god's will is?
Because god's will has a 'good' flavour to it.
And how do I know what a good flavour is?
Whatever is God's Will has a good flavour.
You see how it proves difficult to go anywhere here?
The only dilemma I can see here (given the working basis of 'good' being applied) is; "what is Gods will on the matter?". If you knew that then you'd know what the good thing to do was. Now that might mean the patient suffering for a longer period than would be the case where euthanisia invoked.
Or it might mean that "pulling the plug" is okay. It really just depends on whose interpretation of God's will you listen to. For example, someone might cause the death of the suffering person, whether intentionally or not, and anyone (the causer or someone else) can readily declare after the fact that "this was God's will." Well, if not, why not?
Suffering, it must be noted however, is a tool employed (though not necessarily powered) by God ...
Likewise "premature death" (aka killing).
God permitting suffering shouldn't automatically be seen in as a negative thing.
Likewise, God permitting (or instructing) one person to kill another shouldn't automatically be seen as a negative thing -- again, it depends on who you ask.
For the believer there is a route to a decision ... and so the dilemma can be resolved for the believer by seeking out God's will in the matter.
The problem is that two or more different believers are prone to find different and mutually irreconcilable routes, leading to divergent decisions for one particular situation. It's an affliction that besets non-believers as well, obviously, but the non-believers at least can make some appeal to broader considerations: previous evidence, supportable predictions of outcomes, inalienable rights of individuals, etc. When the situation allows, these considerations can be openly discussed by the affected parties for the sake of establishing an informed consensus {AbE: or at least an objective basis for imposing/submitting to undesirable consequences, as is commonly done in courts of law}.
Such considerations might be ignored or deliberately discarded by some God-bound believers in some situations, and the notion of building consensus can only be construed as acknowledging and submitting to authority. (At best, a true consensus becomes a matter of finding agreement on which of the competing interpretations best represents the authority.) {AbE: At worst, the differing parties are incapable of finding consensus, and the inevitable outcome is schism: they part ways, and each proceeds to act according to their own choices. Rather an odd property of God's will, don't you think?}
Edited by Otto Tellick, : addition as noted in next-to-last paragraph
Edited by Otto Tellick, : addition as noted in last paragraph

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by iano, posted 12-15-2009 6:03 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by iano, posted 12-19-2009 7:22 PM Otto Tellick has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 122 of 181 (539730)
12-19-2009 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by iano
12-15-2009 6:03 AM


How do we know good when we see it?
As far as practical application goes? All that needs doing now (given the above) is to cite examples of what God finds good (ie: that to which his flavour attachs when he does it, or when that of him in us expresses itself in our actions). You now have your practical examples: the flavours we call kindness, selflessness, fairness, patience, love, etc. All 'good' - all of God.
I'm not looking for examples of 'good'. I was asking what makes a thing 'good'. I was asking what makes a thing 'willed by God'. I was asking for an answer to both of those questions at once without each other being used as an answer.
The only dilemma I can see here (given the working basis of 'good' being applied) is; "what is Gods will on the matter?". If you knew that then you'd know what the good thing to do was.
If I knew what the good thing to do was, I'd know what the good thing to do was.
God permitting suffering shouldn't automatically be seen in as a negative thing.
It can be seen as a negative thing, and a good thing.
It's worth remembering too that God sees the heart and isn't at all a legalist in this (or any other) matter. An unbelievers heartfelt compassion for the suffering of a loved one - love that would perhaps risk jail - rather than let the suffering continue - is a different motivation to the cold calculating move to wrest an inheritance from a wealthy aunt
Yes it is different. So intentions have some contribution to whether it is good or not? But knowing that intention to do good can make one act good where an intention to not do good can make an act bad doesn't help me. What if the calculating move to wrest the inheritance from an aunt was to secure the funds to give to charity? Is intention the biggie? Does one just have to believe that what one is doing is good for it to be 'good'? If Hitler (our old standby) earnestly believed that what he did was 'good' and was the desire of God - do you think that what he did could be considered 'morally good'?
I would have thought that it would still be considered morally bad, but because Hitler's motivations were good, God would forgive him.
Don't you understand that the essence is an attribute.
I don't think that's true of Plato's use of the terms.
Perhaps you could explain what problems cannot be solved from this starting point.
I still don't know if euthanising my wealthy and suffering aunt is good. On the one hand you say suffering isn't inherently bad. On the other hand if you suggest it is good if it is motivated by God's will. That is it is good if it is motivated by good. How do I know if it is motivated by good/God's will or not? If I can't use suffering as a guide, what should I look to?
Congruency? The believer has been translated from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of God. And a war rages between those two kingdoms. It wouldn't strike me as congruent for a believer to wage war against his own side. No, to fight against one's own side would be illogical, irrational..
It seems that you are saying here that goodness can be described in terms of your position in a war. So God wills us to pick the kingdom of God's side. So if we are deciding over euthanasia, how do we know which is congruent with the aims of the kingdom of God?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by iano, posted 12-15-2009 6:03 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by iano, posted 12-19-2009 2:43 PM Modulous has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1931 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 123 of 181 (539748)
12-19-2009 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Modulous
12-19-2009 8:33 AM


Re: How do we know good when we see it?
Modulous writes:
I'm not looking for examples of 'good'. I was asking what makes a thing 'good'. I was asking what makes a thing 'willed by God'. I was asking for an answer to both of those questions at once without each other being used as an answer.
I don't understand this Modulous.
You've already understood (you say) the position that 'good' is merely a word-symbol assigned by God to describe the flavour His will has. You'd agree God's will will have a particular flavour and you'll agree there is no problem assigning a symbol ('good') to represent that flavour. In that case, there should be no posing of the question above: "what makes a thing good" is dealt with "what Gods will is". They are one and the same.
Why does God's will have the flavour it has? - perhaps that's what your asking? I can only suggest it arises from his nature. He is what he is - flavour and all.
-
If I knew what the good thing to do was, I'd know what the good thing to do was.
Precisely. That's how an a.k.a. works!
-
It can be seen as a negative thing, and a good thing.
Failing insight into your definition of good I can't but agree.
Hopefully I've resolved the euthanasia dilemma from my perspective. "What's God's will" is all I need enquire after to arrive at what's good.
-
Yes it is different. So intentions have some contribution to whether it is good or not? But knowing that intention to do good can make one act good where an intention to not do good can make an act bad doesn't help me. What if the calculating move to wrest the inheritance from an aunt was to secure the funds to give to charity?
There's not much profit in following this tack, Mod. The issue isn't the possible dilemma involved in arriving at what God's will is - each believer has access to the Father and can avail of that access in arriving at a conclusion and so can potentially escape that dilemma in that fashion.
The issue to hand is the supposed Euthypro Dilemma.
-
Is intention the biggie? Does one just have to believe that what one is doing is good for it to be 'good'? If Hitler (our old standby) earnestly believed that what he did was 'good' and was the desire of God - do you think that what he did could be considered 'morally good'?
Clearly not necessarily - according to our aka. The measure of goodness is the degree of actual alignment of ones actions with Gods will - not merely believing that your actions align with God's will. If the belief regarding the actuality of Gods will matches the actually of God's will then you're in business - whether you're Hitler or anyone else. If not, then clearly not - according to our aka.
The earnestness of a belief contrary to God's will translates into earnest alignment with the will of satan (the other influence in the scheme of things). A person is culpable for that which they sign up for, so Hitler (if we're supposing his earnest beliefs contrary to Gods will) is in deep trouble on this one.
If our intention is God-powered (I said previously) then it is good - irrespective of what the world thinks of it. And I gave an example of this in the case of euthanasia - where "the world" might consider permitting extended suffering a morally "bad" thing.
-
I still don't know if euthanising my wealthy and suffering aunt is good. On the one hand you say suffering isn't inherently bad. On the other hand if you suggest it is good if it is motivated by God's will. That is it is good if it is motivated by good. How do I know if it is motivated by good/God's will or not? If I can't use suffering as a guide, what should I look to?
As an unbeliever? I'm not sure it matters all that much where you look. What will happen is that a decision(s) WILL be made one way or the other. And that decision will be guided by your God-given conscience/God influenced others in your life .. and/or your Sin/Satan influenced nature. And God will see the precise make up of the resulting motivation (which will likely involve a mix of God/Sin influence).
-
It seems that you are saying here that goodness can be described in terms of your position in a war. So God wills us to pick the kingdom of God's side. So if we are deciding over euthanasia, how do we know which is congruent with the aims of the kingdom of God?
As a believer? I've no idea - I'd imagine I'd have to be in the situation to be driven to find out Gods will in the matter. When it comes to killing, I don't suppose God's will to forbid all killing in all circumstance. If the issue was selfishness however then I'd be confident I could say what God's will was.
My point here wasn't so much that God wills us to pick his side (in the sense of browbeating us). Rather, he leaves us to the pressure applied by the principle of congruency. We can decide to be incongruent if we like (which we frequently are, given that Christians sin all the time), in which case we suffer the disharmony that arises whilst threading an incongruent path.
-
BTW. Did you like that returning-from-whence-we-started w.r.t. your question: "why should a believer love his neighbour?" I found it neat that the 'should' element of the question looses relevancy due to the believer becoming divine. It just occurred to me whilst writing it and it ties in nicely with the concept of goodness promoted in this thread. It ties in nicely to to the idea that there will be a 'time' for the believer when there will be no more need for morality (which involve access to both good and evil). The believer won't be able to chose to do evil anymore.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Modulous, posted 12-19-2009 8:33 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Otto Tellick, posted 12-19-2009 6:37 PM iano has replied
 Message 129 by Briterican, posted 12-20-2009 3:16 PM iano has replied
 Message 140 by Modulous, posted 12-30-2009 4:09 AM iano has replied

  
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2321 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 124 of 181 (539766)
12-19-2009 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by iano
12-19-2009 2:43 PM


Re: How do we know good when we see it?
iano writes:
The measure of good is actual alignment with Gods will - not mere believing that an action aligns with God's will.
Ah -- that makes it quite plain and clear, then?
I'm not sure it would help to ask or speculate about the internal state of someone who believes that his/her action aligns with God's will when it actually does not. I'm sure it must be a regrettable situation indeed for an individual to be in such a state, even though (or perhaps especially because) the person may be completely unaware of it. You would apparently agree that a person could arrive at an incorrect belief about God and what His will is, and act wrongly, though sincerely, as a result.
But what I can't help wondering is: how do others, when considering such an individual's behavior, know the difference between that which does and that which does not align with God's will? I suspect that for a variety of situations and behaviors, sincere believers in God could disagree in this regard.
The issue isn't the dilemma involved in arriving at what God's will is - each believer has access to the Father and can avail of that access in arriving at a conclusion.
And each skeptical agnostic and atheist has access to principles that are explicitly stated, culturally ingrained and/or logically, naturally entailed -- things like: treat others as you would like to be treated, all individuals are entitled to respect, when choosing your own course of action the better choice is one that does not impinge on others' ability to choose their course of action, all individuals must accept constraints on their actions to sustain social order or face punitive consequences, and so on.
The access to these considerations does not depend on belief in an immaterial being whose true nature and intent is acknowledged to be unknowable. There is no need to appeal to conclusions that can only be reached and attested on the basis of internal, subjective notions that may be different for each person.
These open, rational, objective considerations do not exclude or forbid belief in immaterial beings. People still can, if they wish, attribute good behaviors to inspiration from God, and bad behaviors to influence by Satan. Empirical research may well show such notions to be demonstrably false, by finding the material/natural causes of these behaviors. (If/when that happens, "mainstream" believers will no doubt continue to find room for immaterial causation, and fundamentalist believers will include "The Origin of Morals" with "The Origin of Species" as the target of their fallacious rants.)
But when any given believer ends up with a wrong idea about what God's will is (as this will inevitably happen), and the resulting actions violate the objective standards of behavior in the ambient society, it will be the objective standards that make it clear how this believer is in error.

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by iano, posted 12-19-2009 2:43 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by iano, posted 12-21-2009 6:39 PM Otto Tellick has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1931 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 125 of 181 (539770)
12-19-2009 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Otto Tellick
12-19-2009 3:31 AM


Otto Tellick writes:
I wonder: did you happen to read my one previous post in this thread? Do you consider the issues I raise there to be off-topic, or simply unworthy of a response? That post speaks directly to something that would pull us out of this circle you seem to be stuck in.
Sorry that I missed your post - I'm sure what you say is due a response. I'll try to get back to it tomorrow okay? I'm interested in seeing what this circle I'm stuck in is..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Otto Tellick, posted 12-19-2009 3:31 AM Otto Tellick has seen this message but not replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3852 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 126 of 181 (539882)
12-20-2009 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by hooah212002
12-07-2009 10:59 AM


Re: do as I say, not as I do
yeah, and I happen to think that makes the god of the bible a real arsehole.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by hooah212002, posted 12-07-2009 10:59 AM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3852 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 127 of 181 (539885)
12-20-2009 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by iano
12-09-2009 5:43 AM


Re: do as I say, not as I do
iano writes:
greyseal writes:
so, god's ultimate law (well, one of them) is broken by himself before he's written it down*, after he's written it down, and then by the humans who it supposedly applies to as a triple-whammy.
The intention behind Gods law issued to man (especially effected through conscience) was to:
a) restrain mankinds sinful nature from Total Expression - which, if not restrained, would result in self-inflicted carnage to a degree never before seen
really? So killing absolutely everyone, everywhere (apart from one family and some breeding stock) is somehow not as bad as what man could do?
I'm sorry, but gigadeath of an entire planetary ecosystem is just about the worst possible thing ever. Infact, at this point in time whilst we have only this one planet to live on, there is no possible worse crime.
I understand your rationale - god is the boss, the one who says what is and what is not - but I happen to think his attitude of "do as I say and not as i do" is just wrong.
I think that for an all-powerful creature to have to stoop to killing (justified or not) puts the lie to his words of how powerful a creature he says he is.
i think - and you're going to have a hard time convincing me otherwise - that your answer to the question in the topic is that what god says is right because god says it - and might makes right.
god is way more powerful than a human or even all humanity - so we have to agree with what he says or...well...you know where the last guy who disagreed with gods rule ended up.
And rule from the barrel of the gun is tyranny in my book, how ever much you sugar-coat it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by iano, posted 12-09-2009 5:43 AM iano has not replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3852 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 128 of 181 (539893)
12-20-2009 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by iano
12-18-2009 2:11 PM


Re: you're off topic, iano - it's "what is good" as in the source and definition
iano writes:
Why "love thy neighbour?"...It was given as part of the reason why God commands us to love our neighbour (in the context of explaining the mechanism of salvation).
I'm sorry, but I don't see why it in particular was on topic - it was just god saying "do this", not why we should, but, onwards...
It is inarguably a good thing (at least, I've not seen any argument yet that circumvents it being a good thing) given that the definition of good being utilised by me is "the particular flavour eminating from that which God does, commands, thinks,..etc". By that definition, following Gods commands (which instruct goodness - by definition) cannot be anything but good.
The problem isn't whether we agree it's good or not, but why it's good.
You're saying "it's good because god orders us to do it, and god is good and would only tell us to do good things because god is good".
It doesn't actually qualify why or if it is good intrinsically or if it's good because god says it is.
I know your answer is "god is intrinsically good" sometimes and "god's law of good and bad doesn't apply to god" at others, but you're missing the point - or avoiding it.
Apparently you're saying something like "god says what is good, but it is good because god says it is, but it's also good because it is good" which lets you claim both halves of the question as being answered by you whilst answering neither.
Except here:
By definition, it's good if God says so.
Which means, essentially, that what is or isn't good is entirely up to god - meaning it's arbitrary. Of course, you claim god is perfect (well, you claim he claims he is perfect) so it's alright...again we have to take god at his word (at a very remote third hand, no less).
God's view on what is good and evil doesn't appear to change.
yes, it does - unless god is happy committing what we would call evil.
he kills the entire world, and says later on "thou shalt not kill". He then sends a bunch of his most rabid followers to kill everybody, including the women and children, who are innocent (or not, depending where in the bible you read it from).
So, either god's happy suspending his rules, or it's okay to do evil things if god gives you a free pass.
no, i'm not a bible scholar, but I don't think something so apparently contradictory can easily be explained - I personally think calling murder "justified" is a pretty evil cop-out, and is a whole world away from "good".
Proving things like Gods existance isn't on the agenda in this thread - we suppose God exists for the sake of argument.
I know, I was just trying to highlight the problems you present - first you have to be sure a god or god exists. then you have to be sure you've got god's will correct or not. then you have to know whether god is what god claims to be. then you're pretty much back at the beginning - is it good because god says so, or because it is?
iano writes:
who am I to question god's authority? well...somebody has to. Granted, it didn't go so well for the last guy to stick his neck out, but look where it got us - free will. that's quite a good trick.
That's fightin' talk. Perhaps you could do a bit more reflection on your first question though - and come back with an answer that's other than fightin' talk? Something more rational perhaps?
Theologically speaking we haven't free will btw. Adam had and lost it when he fell. He became a captive, an addict, a slave to... sin. We sin because we are sinners - not because we have free will and chose to do so.
fighting talk? I'm sorry, but I'm with Captain Kirk when he flies to the center of the galaxy, finds a huge floating head that claims to be god and then asks one small, simple question - "what does god need...with a star-ship?"
Unmentionably terrible things have been done by people claiming to be acting for the good of everyone else - when I can see this to be so, I think standing up and saying "excuse me, but...I have a problem with this..." is the right thing to do.
I'm surprised something so passive could be called "fighting talk" and branded "irrational".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by iano, posted 12-18-2009 2:11 PM iano has not replied

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 3939 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 129 of 181 (539914)
12-20-2009 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by iano
12-19-2009 2:43 PM


Re: How do we know good when we see it?
Hi iano
iano writes:
"what makes a thing good" is dealt with "what Gods will is". They are one and the same.
So, in Pakistan - if a girl has premarital sex with someone outside her caste, it is "good" for the family to kill her in an "honour killing". That would be a valid statement in many parts of Pakistan. How do they consider such a horrendous thing "good" ? Because it is God's will.
That's not "your God", you say? Well...
Deuteronomy writes:
22:22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.
22:23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
22:24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
The Christian God seems to have some equally vicious ways of dealing with sexual promiscuity. Notice that there is only one tiny reference above that even remotely questions the woman's consent? "Because she cried not" - but, My Lord, my mouth was gagged and I could not cry out! - Sorry, too bad, you shall be put to death.
The Bible is littered with ill-treatment of women, because it was written by men in a time when the ill-treatment of women was considered "good" - by which I guess you consider that it was also "God's will".
What has happened since those ancient times that made God change his opinion of women?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by iano, posted 12-19-2009 2:43 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by hooah212002, posted 12-20-2009 3:31 PM Briterican has replied
 Message 133 by iano, posted 12-21-2009 6:02 PM Briterican has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 792 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 130 of 181 (539917)
12-20-2009 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Briterican
12-20-2009 3:16 PM


Re: How do we know good when we see it?
*****slightly off topic*******
That's not "your God", you say? Well...
I was listening to WPR (Wisconsin Public Radio) yesterday on my morning commute, and they had a bit about a Moslem televangelist in Egypt. He is complete with T.V. ads, books, audio disks, etc. However, he was unlike *our televangelists (at least in this report) in that he spoke of equality and love, liberty and so on.
He went on to say how christians and muslims and jews should all get along because *gasp* you all worship the same god, just in different ways (guess what guys...you DO).
I can't remember his name (nor could I really understand it for that matter. Apologies), but it seemed as though he is a changing voice for Islam. Can't christianity do the same?
/end off topicness******

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
-Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Briterican, posted 12-20-2009 3:16 PM Briterican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Briterican, posted 12-20-2009 3:42 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 132 by iano, posted 12-21-2009 5:52 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 3939 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 131 of 181 (539918)
12-20-2009 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by hooah212002
12-20-2009 3:31 PM


Re: How do we know good when we see it?
------- still slightly off topic
hooah212002 writes:
I was listening to WPR (Wisconsin Public Radio) yesterday on my morning commute, and they had a bit about a Moslem televangelist in Egypt. He is complete with T.V. ads, books, audio disks, etc. However, he was unlike *our televangelists (at least in this report) in that he spoke of equality and love, liberty and so on.
He went on to say how christians and muslims and jews should all get along because *gasp* you all worship the same god, just in different ways (guess what guys...you DO).
His name is Amr Khaled - BBC News - Muslim televangelist takes his message to millions
I saw this story as well.
BBC writes:
"They have found a way to interject religion into a more modern lifestyle. In other words, your behaviour is what defines a good Muslim - not how many times you recite the Koran in one week, or how many times you go to the mosque," Ms Abdo argues.
In this sense, the young televangelists represent a paradigm shift. While the emphasis in traditional preaching is on rituals, theirs is on personal conduct and social responsibility.
I wish they could just dispense with this God fellow alltogether, but in the meantime it is nice to see occasional evidence of a shift away from fundamentalism.
Edited by Briterican, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by hooah212002, posted 12-20-2009 3:31 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1931 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 132 of 181 (540033)
12-21-2009 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by hooah212002
12-20-2009 3:31 PM


Re: How do we know good when we see it?
hooah writes:
He went on to say how christians and muslims and jews should all get along because *gasp* you all worship the same god, just in different ways (guess what guys...you DO).
We do?
How can the God of Christianity (who grants salvation to men as a gift and by no other means) be the same as the god of Islam (who grants salvation to men as a reward for work done)?
(I'd agree the worship-rationale of the Christian will be markedly different from that of the muslim. The above is a clue as to why that might be.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by hooah212002, posted 12-20-2009 3:31 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1931 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 133 of 181 (540034)
12-21-2009 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Briterican
12-20-2009 3:16 PM


Re: How do we know good when we see it?
That's not "your God", you say? Well...
...that's off topic. The topic has to do with a dilemma the believer (a Christian in this case) is supposedly faced with. That dilemma hasn't to do with what God finds good vs. what mans finds good.
-
What has happened since those ancient times that made God change his opinion of women?
The passage you quote talks of both man and woman who engage in consentual adulterous sex (for such is implied in the passage) being subject to the penalty of death. There is nothing in the NT that indicates that the eternal destination for such people will be any different. Death - lasting for all eternity - it shall be.
God hasn't changed his opinion in this regard whether the person be a man or a woman.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Briterican, posted 12-20-2009 3:16 PM Briterican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Briterican, posted 12-21-2009 8:53 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1931 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 134 of 181 (540039)
12-21-2009 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Otto Tellick
12-19-2009 6:37 PM


Re: How do we know good when we see it?
iano writes:
The measure of good is actual alignment with Gods will - not mere believing that an action aligns with God's will.
Ah -- that makes it quite plain and clear, then?
I'm not sure it would help to ask or speculate about the internal state of someone who believes that his/her action aligns with God's will when it actually does not. I'm sure it must be a regrettable situation indeed for an individual to be in such a state, even though (or perhaps especially because) the person may be completely unaware of it.
The internal state of someone who is operating contrary to God (whilst believing they are acting in accordance with God) is addressed in two ways.
a) It is not God they are believing. They might be believing in a false view of the Abrahamic God (as per Judaism or Islam). Or they might be believing in a false god of another name.
b) they are doing evil whilst believing they are doing good. A person arrives at this point when their conscience (that which provides a knowledge of good and evil - as per God's view) isn't operating/operating effectively. With nothing left to guide them to Gods' good they are at the mercy of Satan (who can entice them to believe all sorts)
-
You would apparently agree that a person could arrive at an incorrect belief about God and what His will is, and act wrongly, though sincerely, as a result.
From the above, yes. Conscience is suppressible. And with repeated suppression, it's still, soft voice can be silenced. Sincerity of wrongdoing follows. But the culpability remains with the person for bringing themselves to that state: like a drunk driver imbibing of that which will later have him act irresponsibly and taking to the wheel. He can't blame the drink that caused him to act so.
-
But what I can't help wondering is: how do others, when considering such an individual's behavior, know the difference between that which does and that which does not align with God's will? I suspect that for a variety of situations and behaviors, sincere believers in God could disagree in this regard.
If the person isn't a believer I'm not sure they'd give a hoot what God's will is. When it comes to believers, sure there's disagreement. But I don't see how it matters very much in the heel of the hunt - it's the individual Christian who gets to stand before God and give an account of their actions and views, not a committee who happen to come to a consensus on the matter.
-
And each skeptical agnostic and atheist has access to principles that are explicitly stated, culturally ingrained and/or logically, naturally entailed -- things like: treat others as you would like to be treated, all individuals are entitled to respect, when choosing your own course of action the better choice is one that does not impinge on others' ability to choose their course of action, all individuals must accept constraints on their actions to sustain social order or face punitive consequences, and so on.
The access to these considerations does not depend on belief in an immaterial being whose true nature and intent is acknowledged to be unknowable. There is no need to appeal to conclusions that can only be reached and attested on the basis of internal, subjective notions that may be different for each person.
That's all very fine and dandy - were it not for the fact that you can't attach these principles to anything concrete. Call what you call good 'good' if you like. Without concrete moorings you're as much at sea as you suppose I am.
There is no absolute resolution of this debate - short of your death or Christs return.
-
These open, rational, objective considerations do not exclude or forbid belief in immaterial beings.
Objective?
People still can, if they wish, attribute good behaviors to inspiration from God, and bad behaviors to influence by Satan. Empirical research may well show such notions to be demonstrably false, by finding the material/natural causes of these behaviors.
My firm conviction is that the same non-concrete moorings will attach to such findings (should they ever be found) as attach to these objective principles of yours above. God's/Satans influence manifests in the physical at some point (it would be held) so little wonder that a physical 'cause' be identified for good/evil behaviour.
-
(If/when that happens, "mainstream" believers will no doubt continue to find room for immaterial causation, and fundamentalist believers will include "The Origin of Morals" with "The Origin of Species" as the target of their fallacious rants.)
When you're supposing a hierarchy of personhood along the lines Spirit > Mind > Body then the "mainstream" won't have reason to find room for anything. The room is already there and cannot be filled.
-
But when any given believer ends up with a wrong idea about what God's will is (as this will inevitably happen), and the resulting actions violate the objective standards of behavior in the ambient society, it will be the objective standards that make it clear how this believer is in error.
You'll forgive me if I don't find this supposed objectivity anything but bootstrap by nature.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Otto Tellick, posted 12-19-2009 6:37 PM Otto Tellick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Otto Tellick, posted 12-22-2009 1:07 AM iano has replied

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 3939 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 135 of 181 (540059)
12-21-2009 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by iano
12-21-2009 6:02 PM


Re: How do we know good when we see it?
Hi iano
iano writes:
The passage you quote talks of both man and woman who engage in consentual adulterous sex (for such is implied in the passage) being subject to the penalty of death.
Okay so... would you like to see the death penalty enacted for those found guilty of adultery in today's society? Would that be God's will in action? Would those executions be undeniably "good" by this "Good=God's Will" moral code?
Women are given the short end of the stick from the word go in the Bible. Woman was created, almost as an afterthought, from one of Adam's ribs. Fanciful notion, and a perfect way to set the stage for an implied dominance of men over women, perpetuating the idea that women are wholly dependent on men. God is a male after all, isn't he? The ladies just can't get a break here!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by iano, posted 12-21-2009 6:02 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by iano, posted 12-22-2009 7:04 AM Briterican has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024