Do feelings count?

So Do Feelings Count? Moreover, do they count objectively? Remember that subjective means a feeling that arises entirely within an individual, whereas "objective" means a feeling derived from or oringinating within an external source--such as God or Humanity. OK... It is an endless Faith/Belief argument that a case can be made for objective morality---assuming as we do that God is real, alive, and a source of Spirit. Aesthetics is a trickier situation. Are 'cute" babies universally judged as such? How about buxom blondes (women) or athletic individuals of either gender? Goodness, Robin---we shall never know! The only way that I could see a universal consensus on such a question is the day that God Himself makes Himself known and every knee bows to Him. I always thought that Christian beauty was an inner radience! It IS true, however, that Christians are attracted to the outer beauty as much as anyone else. Lemme ask Mr. Dictionary one question, just to clear something up:

Nature of Beauty--perhaps biological. Like a flower to a bee.

​

Creaton of Beauty--Natural selection. Theologically, does God ever create anything "ugly"? (Warthogs?)

​

Appreciation of Beauty---Highly subjective. I see no objectivity here, even with Christians....unless we affirm that Jesus is beautiful as an objective imparted ability.

​

---

Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart, and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. Even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained; and even in the best of all hearts, there remains a small corner of evil. --Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

In the strict literalist sense, we all are bad and yet we all have been made good by sacrificial love. (an example to ponder)In a non-religious common sense approach, take the example of Juvenile Court. When a young peson is under 18, they are judged in a restorative system and are often taken from their parents if the "best interestes of the child" are in any way compromised. If Mom or Dad is an alcoholic, for example, they are not judged to be a "bad" influence as in regards to punishing them--(the parent) yet they are often judged a negative influence in the best interests of the child.A person could be said to be "bad" when their overall influence on others is more of a subjectively agreeable "negative" quality versus an overall subjectively agreeable "positive" quality--or influence.

---

Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart, and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. Even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained; and even in the best of all hearts, there remains a small corner of evil. --Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

...and neither is the rules of nature. IF God says something, that something occurs. No amount of mere human logic will ever disprove this fact...(unless you are coming from the position that God is a human construct.) In that case, I'll let you off the hook with your belief. well...one focus of the argument seems to be agreeing (and/or asserting) that God is objective. And that is another topic.Just for you, Chioptera, let me present it in math terms.
God=infinity. Humans= a finite value. Pure evil has no (zero) value.
Human standards are always finite. Evil standards never stand up to scrutiny. (Usually punishments merited to humans are of a finite value, however.) Now....if only I can convince you that the wonders and standards of the infinite God are what shape reality.Once upon a time, there was a vast and infinite universe....(Now think one step bigger)This message has been edited by Phat, 03-08-2006 01:18 PM

---

Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart, and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. Even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained; and even in the best of all hearts, there remains a small corner of evil. --Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

Actually, that is a good point, Robin! I have no such evidence....perhaps God has decreed that Red shall remain Red under the laws of light spectography that He has created! The Red/Blue thing would be merely within the constructs of human definition. Red would become Blue by assuming the spectrum values previously assigned to Blue.

I'll admit that I cannot readily explain it...(or Him) But without an absolute standard, how can we even begin to compare/contrast relative standards?I will concede, however, that you and Holmes make a great tagteam of logic: If we had a Paragraph Of The Month nomination, I would give that one the nod! I cannot argue against the logic of a reality-based subjectivism and the illogical standard of presupposed God fearin reality!

---

Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart, and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. Even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained; and even in the best of all hearts, there remains a small corner of evil. --Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

I got nothin.Cept, perhaps, a few scrips to ponder: Of course, the typical "fundie" will trot out scripture in the attempts to "win" an argument...since they have nothing to say aside from scripture. I seek not to win any arguments, but only through scripture can I understand certain logical arguments.I wont say that Holmes response was not true, however. There is absolutely no way to prove an absolute standard...much less define it (Him), much less even live it! What did Paul mean when he uttered these words? Was he not arguing against human wisdom and philosophy in an attempt to explain an absolute standard? The personified standard of the Spirit dwelling within him?Of course...I also am reminded again and again of Chipteras signature statement: Since I am introducing some of my "human philosophers" such as Paul, I can only contrast some other philosophers and their philosophies. So I suppose that I am out of my league in terms of logical, educational rationality! I did browse some of Pollitts writing, however, and was impressed with this quote:

Say we all were in an art museum, viewing a painting. Each of us would have a viewpoint, an opinion, and a critique of the painting--of what is was supposed to mean, and of what types of feelings it conveyed to each individual. There would be no "right" interpretations of the meaning behind the painting as it was intended....EXCEPT...perhaps...by the Artist who painted the painting. The Artists intent, passion, and purpose would, I argue, be more objective than the subjective opinions of the gallery of observers. The observers may still respond to the artists intent differently than the artist "intended" for them to feel. (But maybe not) Maybe the artist intended merely to provoke controversy for some as yet unknown reason.)This is how fundie logic works. We believe that God, as author of creation, painted the painting, defined the words, ascribed intended meaning and purpose into the "project" and made the very definitions of meaning, purpose, and logic possible.Im not saying that I am a fundamentalist nor am I saying that objective interpretations can be proven (seeing as how some claim to have met the artist and some have never met the artist.)Im just throwing another perspective into a symbolic parable.This message has been edited by Phat, 03-09-2006 08:13 AM

---

Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart, and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. Even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained; and even in the best of all hearts, there remains a small corner of evil. --Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

Yes...as an uncommitted freethinker, you may well think that there is no reason to consider one set of preferences any more valid than the other. Assuming that God does have power and/or ability over and above what you yourself have means that you have two basic options to this dilemma.1) Ignore attempts at relationship with God and simply refuse to acknowledge the presence (or abstract perception of same)2) Hash it out with God and commit your freethinking to either #1 above or to admitting that His preferences supercede your preferences.
One cannot be uncommitted for a lifetime. Not deciding is, in fact, deciding.Is there a third option, Chioptera? (lots of assumin goin on round here! )

---

Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart, and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. Even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained; and even in the best of all hearts, there remains a small corner of evil. --Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

And...while we are pondering definitions... This message has been edited by Phat, 03-09-2006 09:34 AM