| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/16/2008 03:39:31 AM · #1801 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by rossbilly:
btw - WHAT are you going to do if, upon your demise, you face a being other than the god you expect? What if there IS no redeemer (Jesus)? |
The good news is almost all other religions look to "the good life". On balance, I'll then point to my acts of purity and self-discipline and take my chances. I may not attain the highest heaven, but as I've read, I'll be ok. If it's not good enough, well, then I'm screwed and I can join you wherever.
My lot is cast though. I'm all in. |
You seem to assume that maybe one of the religions have it right. What if god IS gay? Didn't god make man in his own image and woman for that matter? Maybe just you and flash will be screwed?
Message edited by author 2008-12-16 03:40:42.
|
|
|
|
12/16/2008 06:00:04 AM · #1802 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, the point within this little argument was to show that Flash may have had a point after all. I certainly don't like his style of argument and he can often open himself up to valid counterpoints, but he was trying to say "All have failed". People were getting too mired down in the idea this was coming from the Bible and with the word "sin". I was trying to show that we could forget the Bible and the word "sin" and just ask everybody if they have lived up to their own standard. Nobody answered to the affirmative. Dahkota is still trying to, but she used mulligans and workarounds to get there. |
I guess where this gets to me is that you make it sound so final and bad.
I stated a couple of times that to fail is to be human, and the being human, we are fallible, but that's kind of the nature of life, in and of itself.
If you do not fail in some manner, at some point, you're not reaching to attain any goals.
If you don't fall short, your expectations aren't high enough.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
In the larger context I think the world is better off when we realize we are no better than our neighbor. The evil we see in the world is also within us. We do our best to deny it and set the bar of acceptability just below our feet, but this does not reflect the true state of things. Coming to grips with this truth is the first step to healing. Even if I leave Christianity out of it, pride, the putting of oneself above others, is the source for nearly all the evil in the world. The easiest way to give your neighbor a break is to realize we need a break just as often. Let me ask this. If Dahkota truly is as perfect with her code as she claims, shouldn't she have the right to be frustrated with the rest of us? If we can't keep our own codes as well, aren't we letting her down in this social contract we are all a part of? Seems logical to me. |
I don't think that there is evil in us on a fundamental level.
I know too many people who are just plain decent and good. Period.
They're just not made like that.
Nobody's perfect, but there are a lot of people that are so good and decent that their "failures" are of little consequence.
It's not a case of having fallen short in life making you into something evil......or being a failure.
There's a balance, and I know quite a few people who are just incredibly good, selfless and kind, warm and compassionate.
If they don't achieve something they've strived for, it's just semantics to say they've failed.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
At some point in each of our lives this truth (our failure) makes itself evident. The question is what do we do at that point? Do we shove it back down and try to forget it? or do we ask for help? |
We pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, move on to the next goal.
One thing that I feel is important is intent.
I think that's important, and I think that's where people like Courtenay fall outside your realm of comprehension.
They are comfortable and happy enough with who they are that they do not struggle for meaning and validity in life.
If they are the people they strive to be, then they are not failures on any level.
|
|
|
|
12/16/2008 06:55:53 AM · #1803 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Flash does have a valid point - if someone rejects religion SOLELY because they perceive their own actions as sinful with respect to the Bible (or the Koran for that matter), that's "wrong" in the sense apparently that person once DID believe in some sort of religion but wishes to live outside of that without the consequences. That's a fair argument. It does not apply to those who do not accept the Bible and therefore don't view their actions as a "sin", or even missing the mark. |
This is an alien concept to me, yet it seems to be something that both Dr Achoo and Flash subscribe to. It seems to attach an importance to religion that I'm quite sure that non-believers don't.
I feel that's a definite stumbling block to reasonable discussion on the subject. I think it's too hard for the devout believer to detach from their beliefs to be able to comprehend the total lack of relevance that religion has to the non-believer.
Originally posted by Melethia:
My question to you, which you answered well from within your personal framework, dealt with why, for instance, you seem to have such a problem accepting that Dahkota feels she lives fully within the scope of her moral code. Why is it so important to you that others declare themselves failures? I do not get from her that she feels superior to others, but that she is happy with the way she lives her life. I don't get the feeling she compares herself to others at all - she is accountable to herself. She has made decisions regarding her own personal standards/moral code and lives up to those. I do not see how the way she lives her life, and perceives it, should have any impact on you and your life. |
I'm thinking that is the evangelism part of religion. That co-dependent need to save others' souls is something that seems to give comfort within the realm of believers.
It also reflects a certain lack of respect for other people's beliefs......that is what I feel that non-believers find to be so offensive. The complete surety that everyone else is wrong if you don't subscribe to their beliefs.
Originally posted by Melethia:
I do understand that part of some branches of Christianity is sharing the faith with others. I entertain the Jehovah's Witnesses that come to my door every other Saturday here - they're good, kind people who bring me literature and check to see how I'm doing. In the states I routinely welcomed the LDS missionaries, though for reasons totally beyond my comprehension, I can no longer invite them into my home (single woman - the ulitmate curse in all societies.) I have a bit less patience with evangelists who want my money in order to save my soul, but that's a whole 'nuther story. So from that perspective, I can understand why you find it important to convince each of us we've failed/sinned/missed the mark. But hopefully you can also understand that there are those who do not see the human race as one giant miserable bunch of sinners who have no option BUT to fail. It's a different perspective - not more right or more wrong - just different. |
I do not, and never will understand the need for the human race to accept the beliefs that we are all sinners and/or failures.
If that's the case, what's the point of the human race at all?
To try to find forgiveness from a creator that created damaged goods in the first place?
That's inane from my point of view.
One thing that I've noticed belonging to the UU church.....the majority of us have been DRIVEN from the standard religions by the creeds and codas that seem to concentrate more on the bad in people than the good.
The people in my church pretty much to the last one are people who love their fellow man, warst and all, see the good in us, and concentrate on that as opposed to dwelling on the fallibility of the human condition.
The very first of the seven UU principles: The inherent worth and dignity of every person.
Isn't that what we're born with?
Where we come from before the outside influences have the opportunity to mold us?
Thayt's what I believe.
|
|
|
|
12/16/2008 07:06:41 AM · #1804 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
We all have a goal in our morality. Dahkota's is to follow the Golden Rule, etc. etc. etc. |
Its not a goal, its a state of being. I don't follow the golden rule, I live it. |
|
|
|
12/16/2008 07:13:36 AM · #1805 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
My point is actually that I'm hearing a lot of self-love in these moral codes. Dahkota fails. Jeb fails. |
And again, in your moral universe, you fail. Your word, not mine. In my moral universe, I don't fail. Neither does anyone else, at least by my account. Again, I don't judge the actions of others such as you do. And yes, I love myself. I fully believe that you can't love anyone or anything else until you love yourself. There is nothing wrong with that, or does Christianity hold that as a sin also? Ah, you would call that pride. In my moral world, there is nothing wrong with pride; it is not a failure. Arrogance is annoying, but it is not failure either. In my moral world, the only failure is lack of understanding and lack of love for fellow man. But christianity doesn't preach that, it seems. |
|
|
|
12/16/2008 07:28:14 AM · #1806 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Dahkota is still trying to, but she used mulligans and workarounds to get there. |
No I didn't. I stated that when I was a child, I sinned. But my sins were absolved by a christian church, just as yours were. When I grew older, I developed my own moral code that I have lived by ever since. And, amazingly, its a pretty easy code to live by.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
In the larger context I think the world is better off when we realize we are no better than our neighbor. The evil we see in the world is also within us. We do our best to deny it and set the bar of acceptability just below our feet, but this does not reflect the true state of things. Coming to grips with this truth is the first step to healing. Even if I leave Christianity out of it, pride, the putting of oneself above others, is the source for nearly all the evil in the world. The easiest way to give your neighbor a break is to realize we need a break just as often. Let me ask this. If Dahkota truly is as perfect with her code as she claims, shouldn't she have the right to be frustrated with the rest of us? If we can't keep our own codes as well, aren't we letting her down in this social contract we are all a part of? Seems logical to me. |
See, you assume that my moral code covers the actions of others. It does not. You believe that I hold myself above others, like you do. I don't. I understand that my beliefs are not the beliefs of others. I can't be frustrated with anyone else except myself. The frustration comes not when people don't live up to my expectations with regard to morality, but with myself when I realize I expect them to. Huge difference, Achoo. And I think it angers you when I, and others, claim we don't carry the guilt you do. Since I don't know what your moral codes are, how can you let me down? How can anyone ever let me down, when I have no expectations of others? My husband hunts. For me it is a moral no-no. You would call it a sin in my moral world. But, since I don't do it, I haven't committed that sin. In my husband's moral world, it isn't a sin, plain and simple. I am not frustrated because he has not lived up to my morality - I don't project my views on him. I am not frustrated because he lives within his moral code. So where is the problem?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
At some point in each of our lives this truth (our failure) makes itself evident. The question is what do we do at that point? Do we shove it back down and try to forget it? or do we ask for help? |
It goes back to the same point. You believe everyone sins. You believe everyone fails. I disagree. I hold people in high enough regard to believe that they choose their right path. Can't you accept the same? If they fail in their morality, it is not for me to judge.
fixed quote
Message edited by author 2008-12-16 07:34:02. |
|
|
|
12/16/2008 12:12:05 PM · #1807 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
See, you assume that my moral code covers the actions of others. It does not. You believe that I hold myself above others, like you do. I don't. I understand that my beliefs are not the beliefs of others. I can't be frustrated with anyone else except myself. The frustration comes not when people don't live up to my expectations with regard to morality, but with myself when I realize I expect them to. Huge difference, Achoo. And I think it angers you when I, and others, claim we don't carry the guilt you do. Since I don't know what your moral codes are, how can you let me down? How can anyone ever let me down, when I have no expectations of others? My husband hunts. For me it is a moral no-no. You would call it a sin in my moral world. But, since I don't do it, I haven't committed that sin. In my husband's moral world, it isn't a sin, plain and simple. I am not frustrated because he has not lived up to my morality - I don't project my views on him. I am not frustrated because he lives within his moral code. So where is the problem? |
I think it's a great viewpoint you have on paper, but I just don't quite get how it plays out in real life. You seem to say you would never judge someone else for their actions. You don't believe in killing, but your husband is ok with it and so you are ok with him even though he kills. I would have to assume (and I could be wrong) that I could present examples of moral actions and ask "If this person thinks this is OK, you are fine with it and with them?". I'd then just keep ratcheting up the absurdity of the actions and assume at some point you are going to cry uncle and say, "ya, I'm not ok with that no matter who does it".
EDIT: On 11/17 you said, "In the case of discrimination, it is not ok to discriminate against anyone, based on sex or race (or handicap, hair color, number of toes, age, favorite color...)." Was this just for you? Or do you mean you aren't ok with anybody else discriminating either?
Message edited by author 2008-12-16 12:20:32. |
|
|
|
12/16/2008 12:48:30 PM · #1808 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
If you do not fail in some manner, at some point, you're not reaching to attain any goals.
If you don't fall short, your expectations aren't high enough. |
Yes yes YES!
Unlike dahkota, I do think people fail. Failure exists for me. But failure is not bad... it can be NOBLE, and flaws are interesting.
To sin is to have missed the mark. To me, to fail is to have tried unsucessfully, while hitting a different mark. Anyone remember Bob Ross's happy accidents? Failure is often a net gain.
Is it a sin to get terrible grades while acquiring a great education? I don't think so. What matters more, how your education serves you, or what people think about your progress? Guess what... I failed some classes, but that says more about the educational system than me, and my numerous teacher friends, many of whom were at my wedding, would agree.
I went shooting on Sunday. My aim was terrible. It was really cold! I was almost alays 3" left of the bullseye and my grouping was atrocious. Did I sin? Oh no no no... I practiced. On average, I'll be better next time! (I tossed that gun stuff in for you bleeding hearts, hee!)
DrAchoo, why do you keep assuming that your chalengers' moral codes have similarities to yours and putting your own interpretation on them, when people keep pointing out how you miss the mark? You keep trying to drag us to logical conclusions that only work if we made the same assumptions that you do.
I have never personally said that 'do unto others' is the be-all and end-all of my own system of morality. Only dahkota has done that. My own is a lot more complex. It's got bits of "be frugal (and frugal isn't cheap)" and "it's okay to suck at something, not everybody does everything well" and "sometimes you can't be nice to people" and "there are two classes of lies" and "never use a friendship itself as a pawn" and so so much more that I'm not going to go into detail about now.
Yet you try to reduce us to abject failure by presenting our moralities as unworkable, or as some sort of self-centered bar lowering, just low enough for us to go sailing across as we carelessly blow along on the winds of fate. You completely cheapen what, at least to me, is an incredible source of personal pride.
And here we are back at why I call this insulting. The sin crowd treats every alternate moral system as a selfish cheat.
Message edited by author 2008-12-16 12:49:36. |
|
|
|
12/16/2008 01:20:13 PM · #1809 |
| Why yes, I think I will stick to the side challenges from now on and avoid posting in these threads. Thanks for the suggestion! |
|
|
|
12/16/2008 01:53:26 PM · #1810 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Yes yes YES!
Unlike dahkota, I do think people fail.
|
Wait. Just to clarify, I don't think people don't fail. I think they, and I, fail all the time. However, I do not think people fail as Achoo believes they do - with regard to sin. Since I don't believe in sin, I don't understand how one can fail at it. Achoo believes people are born failures. I don't. |
|
|
|
12/16/2008 02:18:13 PM · #1811 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
In my moral world, the only failure is lack of understanding and lack of love for fellow man. |
As a fellow man, I'm struggling to feel the understanding and love you're sending my way. |
|
|
|
12/16/2008 02:20:55 PM · #1812 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Why yes, I think I will stick to the side challenges from now on and avoid posting in these threads. Thanks for the suggestion! |
This saddens me. Your recent post was by far the most balanced and thoughtful post I've read to date. My regrets if any of my positions placed you in the path of criticism. |
|
|
|
12/16/2008 02:26:45 PM · #1813 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by dahkota:
In my moral world, the only failure is lack of understanding and lack of love for fellow man. |
As a fellow man, I'm struggling to feel the understanding and love you're sending my way. |
Perhaps your difficulty is in separating the understanding and love for you as a human being with the rejection of your actions and behavior in pursuit of your faith.
Message edited by author 2008-12-16 14:27:24. |
|
|
|
12/16/2008 02:59:19 PM · #1814 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, the point within this little argument was to show that Flash may have had a point after all. I certainly don't like his style of argument and he can often open himself up to valid counterpoints, but he was trying to say "All have failed". |
That's right Doc. I am fully aware that my "style" is not well received here.
To me, the word "sin" is both a religious term and a descriptive adjective for any misdeed (religious or secular). It is a useful word in writing as in its most generic form, it satisfies many delivery needs as it commands an instant understanding. The secularists heated attack on the term due to its religious association was surprising to me. I thought I used enough other examples by repeating Mousie's terms "unfortunate or immoral acts" to make it clear that I was using the term interchangeably - as the Doctor tried to clarify.
Regardless of what you call your own shortfalls, the point is that everyone I know and have read from here, has them. If you choose to be comfortable with your shortfalls and have no need or desire for forgiveness - great. But one's shortfalls is not an automatic damnation from scripture - as some here try to imply. If you choose to avoid scripture based on your shortfalls, then I would encourage you to revisit it. If you choose to ignore scripture based on research, logic and derived conclusions, then please know that you are not my intended audience. I do not have the power nor the intent to "save" anyone. It is not my mission to try and save your soul. I have no particular interest if you believe or not. I will offer information that I believe is relevant to discussions when I have opportunity to participate. I am not avoiding you if I am absent for a while. There is simply other obligations on my time.
I hold the follwoing to be true; if Jesus himself as the reported "Son of God" couldn't convert the multitudes who in witness of his miracles still chose not to believe in him and condemn him to the crucifixtion, then what/who am I but a gnat speck in the cosmos.
During this time of year, a small group of "older men" (aka Glee Club) travel to various Senior Citizen complexes and sing Christmas Carols. It is a wonderful sight to see the faces in the audience - appreciative of the visit. I always think more about the messiah birth story during this time of year. Some of the song words are truly wonderful. If you are offended by the singing of christmas carols, then I suggest you don't listen to them. But please do not feel you have the right to deny me from singing them. |
|
|
|
12/16/2008 03:38:37 PM · #1815 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, the point within this little argument was to show that Flash may have had a point after all. I certainly don't like his style of argument and he can often open himself up to valid counterpoints, but he was trying to say "All have failed". |
During this time of year, a small group of "older men" (aka Glee Club) travel to various Senior Citizen complexes and sing Christmas Carols. It is a wonderful sight to see the faces in the audience - appreciative of the visit. I always think more about the messiah birth story during this time of year. Some of the song words are truly wonderful. If you are offended by the singing of christmas carols, then I suggest you don't listen to them. But please do not feel you have the right to deny me from singing them. |
I quite enjoy Christmas Carols. However: not all of them are religious, I can appreciate the story without being a believer and I don't recall any of them calling me names and damning me for being a non-believer. |
|
|
|
12/16/2008 03:41:26 PM · #1816 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I quite enjoy Christmas Carols. ... I don't recall any of them calling me names and damning me for being a non-believer. |
Nor have I.
|
|
|
|
12/16/2008 04:14:39 PM · #1817 |
Originally posted by Flash:
To me, the word "sin" is both a religious term and a descriptive adjective for any misdeed (religious or secular). It is a useful word in writing as in its most generic form, it satisfies many delivery needs as it commands an instant understanding. The secularists heated attack on the term due to its religious association was surprising to me. I thought I used enough other examples by repeating Mousie's terms "unfortunate or immoral acts" to make it clear that I was using the term interchangeably - as the Doctor tried to clarify. |
Where has that word been used outside of its religious context? I can see why you might use it regularly given your religious beliefs but I know of no one who uses it in the generic form outside of religious context. Well, except in this thread. Frankly it surprises me that you and Jason would be watering down the word but I suspect it's just for argumentative gain, as in everyone is religious they just don't know it.
|
|
|
|
12/16/2008 06:39:31 PM · #1818 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Flash:
To me, the word "sin" is both a religious term and a descriptive adjective for any misdeed (religious or secular). It is a useful word in writing as in its most generic form, it satisfies many delivery needs as it commands an instant understanding. The secularists heated attack on the term due to its religious association was surprising to me. I thought I used enough other examples by repeating Mousie's terms "unfortunate or immoral acts" to make it clear that I was using the term interchangeably - as the Doctor tried to clarify. |
Where has that word been used outside of its religious context? I can see why you might use it regularly given your religious beliefs but I know of no one who uses it in the generic form outside of religious context. Well, except in this thread. Frankly it surprises me that you and Jason would be watering down the word but I suspect it's just for argumentative gain, as in everyone is religious they just don't know it. |
Frankly it's more likely I've been familiar with the word so long it's a bit foreign to me that others don't get it. Not using the word is not an attempt at argumentative gain, but rather trying to find common ground. If the members of the discussion want to equate sin with a purely religious idea, it isn't a very useful word to me. My point was to show we are all "wrong" or "unethical" (words wiki seems to think atheists prefer under the subheading of "atheism and sin" under the article "sin") at times by our own standard of morals. If people kept getting hung up on the word "sin" in that discussion then it's best just to jettison it.
Message edited by author 2008-12-17 01:22:34. |
|
|
|
12/17/2008 01:28:49 AM · #1819 |
I just watched a repeat viewing of The Dark Knight. There are some awesome morality themes in that film. The two ferries scene is particularly interesting.
For those who haven't seen. Two ferries are full of passengers and rigged with bombs. Each has a detonator to the other bomb. In 15 minutes both will blow up unless one blows the other up. One ferry is full of mobsters; the other normal citizens. What do you think would happen? |
|
|
|
12/17/2008 01:57:56 AM · #1820 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I just watched a repeat viewing of The Dark Knight. There are some awesome morality themes in that film. The two ferries scene is particularly interesting.
For those who haven't seen. Two ferries are full of passengers and rigged with bombs. Each has a detonator to the other bomb. In 15 minutes both will blow up unless one blows the other up. One ferry is full of mobsters; the other normal citizens. What do you think would happen? |
Mobsters are goners. |
|
|
|
12/17/2008 04:45:14 AM · #1821 |
| Haven't seen the movie - why don't they all just jump off their respective ferries? |
|
|
|
12/17/2008 09:58:54 AM · #1822 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I just watched a repeat viewing of The Dark Knight. There are some awesome morality themes in that film. The two ferries scene is particularly interesting.
For those who haven't seen. Two ferries are full of passengers and rigged with bombs. Each has a detonator to the other bomb. In 15 minutes both will blow up unless one blows the other up. One ferry is full of mobsters; the other normal citizens. What do you think would happen? |
Hey, what's dis ting I hear about criminals being mobsters? Ders a difference between us wiseguys and criminals, ya gots that, ders a difference and don't make me tall ya again or else Pauli and Dino is gonna cum and talk some cents into ya, ok! |
|
|
|
12/17/2008 10:05:48 AM · #1823 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Haven't seen the movie - why don't they all just jump off their respective ferries? |
If memory serves me - they don't jump off due to the evil one's (Heath Ledger), watchful eye and the rule that if anyone jumps - then each gets blown up anyway - forcing the moral decision to either blow up the other group or be responsible for killing all those on your ferry. |
|
|
|
12/17/2008 10:30:45 AM · #1824 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Flash:
To me, the word "sin" is both a religious term and a descriptive adjective for any misdeed (religious or secular). It is a useful word in writing as in its most generic form, it satisfies many delivery needs as it commands an instant understanding. The secularists heated attack on the term due to its religious association was surprising to me. I thought I used enough other examples by repeating Mousie's terms "unfortunate or immoral acts" to make it clear that I was using the term interchangeably - as the Doctor tried to clarify. |
Where has that word been used outside of its religious context? I can see why you might use it regularly given your religious beliefs but I know of no one who uses it in the generic form outside of religious context. Well, except in this thread. Frankly it surprises me that you and Jason would be watering down the word but I suspect it's just for argumentative gain, as in everyone is religious they just don't know it. |
It would be time consuming for me to find other posts I used it in but likely it could be found in the science and theology thread. As a writer, many words are used for their effect. "Sin" is a pretty commonly understood term that implies "wrong" or ones' submission to a temptation. Suffice to say that this is not my only application of this word to denote one's shortcomings. Regardless, the point was not the term but the action/behavior and that action/behavior's relation to what scripture says about it. Damnation is not a gauranteed result of one's behavior that violates numerous biblical commandments. It is written that damnation is the defined consequence of choosing to live without the request for salvation - but whether it really is the consequence or not - I can't say. I can only repeat what is written. Others here have argued that what is written is BS. So as in most things, you'll decide for yourself. Just don't decide based on the fact that your behavior falls short. Everyone's does - except for some who post here. |
|
|
|
12/17/2008 10:54:01 AM · #1825 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
I wrote that it is a fact that the bible says "none are without sin" not that I believe or claim that "none are without sin." |
Originally posted by Flash:
1) so what if the Bible lists a behavior as a sin, everyone has some behavior that the bible lists as a sin. |
You just said exactly what you tried to claim you didn't say, and I've already demonstrated that it's an absurd statement. |
You choose to use a literal definition of everyone instead of a figurative definition of everyone. Everyone posting here in this thread = everyone posting here in this thread. The term "everyone" is accurate in that context - even if it does not meet your literal definition of every person ever born or concieved.
The term "none" can be defined in macro or micro, depending on its application. None in this thread are without violation of at least one of scriptures mandates. That is a self evident truth. Like saying the red barn is red. Your 3 month old example - while interesting to postulate and brings up the long standing denominational debate on "original sin", does not advance or address the point that scripture defines some actions as "wrong". Even the 3 month old can grow up to be the Governor of Illinois. Hardly without "sin". |
|
