[leelover]

Originally Posted by analogbear

Duh, OHhhh yeah, wow...Really got me with that. OOOOooohhhhh...But as you didn't call me shirley, I had to make a BAD airplane joke...Had you actually called me shirley, I could have made a GOOD airplane joke (all on-point jokes from airplane are good), get it? Again, not an inconsistency, just reacting to exactly and precisely what you said, you not understanding, and then you trying to "GET ME" opr "catch me in an inconsistency"...Not very "christian" of you, is it Lee?

Piss off.

I wasn't talking about THAT inconsistency.

Define "christian".

Oh and temper, temper!

[analogbear]

No! I will Yell!

[analogbear]

You know, love thy neighbor, stop picking on the meek, **** like dat...

[leelover]

Originally Posted by analogbear

You know, love thy neighbor, stop picking on the meek, **** like dat...

Where am I violating any of that?

[analogbear]

I am your neighbor, and trying to manufacture inconsistencies I supposedly present is very violative of those basic christian principles. I have made no inconsistent statements that were not previously identified as just part of my natural human nature as something of a hyppocrite...Like everyone else...Ever think the N-word?

[leelover]

There are inconsistencies in you arguements. LOTS!

Are you saying that I am not showing love to you?

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by leelover

There are inconsistencies in you arguements. LOTS!

Are you saying that I am not showing love to you?

I am not at all sure I have made any arguments at all, but if you think so, and you think I have been inconsistent (though, as I am not sure we would agree on a definition of that word, I am not sure we would agree that I have)sorry!

And, yeah, you are not showing me love, by tryng to draw me out gain and again into a "god" talk, when we agreed not to.

[leelover]

Originally Posted by analogbear

I am not at all sure I have made any arguments at all, but if you think so, and you think I have been inconsistent (though, as I am not sure we would agree on a definition of that word, I am not sure we would agree that I have)sorry!

And, yeah, you are not showing me love, by tryng to draw me out gain and again into a "god" talk, when we agreed not to.

I DID NOT try to draw you out! YOU can not resist responding to comments that I made to state my opinions. Though I can't either...

How should I show love to you in this venue?

[analogbear]

Show love by keeping out of my discussion with slorider...Because I can't resist you either...Eewww. That was not meant as homosexually as it sounded, dude, sorry. I mean, I really like you, can connect on many levels, but I can't really, through the blurt and wait medium of the bulletin board-blog, have a serious converation about this stuff with you, as we end up really and truly, talking past eachother...I harp on a epistemological problem, and you tell me faith trancends knowledge...Unrelateable issues like that create an unnecessary conflict, after we have had some nice moments about our dads and grandfathers...

[leelover]

Originally Posted by analogbear

Show love by keeping out of my discussion with slorider...Because I can't resist you either...Eewww. That was not meant as homosexually as it sounded, dude, sorry. I mean, I really like you, can connect on many levels, but I can't really, through the blurt and wait medium of the bulletin board-blog, have a serious converation about this stuff with you, as we end up really and truly, talking past eachother...I harp on a epistemological problem, and you tell me faith trancends knowledge...Unrelateable issues like that create an unnecessary conflict, after we have had some nice moments about our dads and grandfathers...

I don't agree that would be the way, andI am not saying that faith trancends knowledge.
Other than that I pretty agree.
And, umm..."How bout them Bears?!?!" (Trains, Planes, and Automobiles)

[leelover]

If I claim to be a committed (no matter what) follower of Christ, as He is Portrayed in the Bible, and continually advocate knowing what that book says and living by it, would I show concern for someone by ignoring them and letting them go on a path that I see leading to destruction here on earth, and beyond?

That would be hypocritical, I believe.

[slorider18]

i feel like the new girlfriend after a bad break up.

Bear, you don't agree that a little kid if left to himself with no instruction to right and wrong will only look out for himself (hit another kid to get the toy he wants)????

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by leelover

If I claim to be a committed (no matter what) follower of Christ, as He is Portrayed in the Bible, and continually advocate knowing what that book says and living by it, would I show concern for someone by ignoring them and letting them go on a path that I see leading to destruction here on earth, and beyond?

That would be hypocritical, I believe.

I think to tell anybody that someone posess knowledge of any absolute truth is akin to mental illness, and should be avoided. I have not asked for your concern in this spiritual regard, and I still find it insulting that you think you are telling me anything new, important, significant, true, or spiritual by merely restating your belief in and interpretation of what is at best a flawed, mistranslated, and disingenuously edited and imperfect testament of god, and at worst pure and utter horseshit, namely: the bible. Frankly, it is great that you believe in something, and I applaud that; but all of this crap is irrelevant, in this context, as WE AGREED NOT TO TALK ABOUT GOD WITH EACHOTHER...

[sinfuldragon]

Originally Posted by slorider18

i feel like the new girlfriend after a bad break up.

Bear, you don't agree that a little kid if left to himself with no instruction to right and wrong will only look out for himself (hit another kid to get the toy he wants)????

I'm not bear but I don't agree with that at all.

[Macattack]

If God is Jesus's father.......and Mary was his Mam...........who was Jesus's girlfriend..........and then if Moses was going out with Mary, did Mary not have an affair with God and then Jesus was born.........I'm all confused???

[leelover]

Originally Posted by Macattack

I'm all confused???

That's an understatement.

[leelover]

Originally Posted by analogbear

WE AGREED NOT TO TALK ABOUT GOD WITH EACHOTHER...

Well, then stop doing it...

[Macattack]

Originally Posted by leelover

That's an understatement.

Does that mean that everyone is all confused too....

[sinfuldragon]

No it meant that your statement was all kinds of wrong

[Macattack]

Originally Posted by sinfuldragon

No it meant that your statement was all kinds of wrong

Well then do you know what is right and what is wrong???????????

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by slorider18

Bear, you don't agree that a little kid if left to himself with no instruction to right and wrong will only look out for himself (hit another kid to get the toy he wants)????

Too many variables...A little kid where? A !Kung tribes-kid from the Kalihari will be very different than a Dutch child, and an American kid will be very different from a Japanese kid, if all were left alone at an age when being left alone wouldn't just lead to death (remember, human babies are utterly helpless, so in order to be left alone, they must have matured at least some).

I think you are trying to establish a variation on the following (flawed)argument:

Without some guidance, people would only be out for themselves.
People only out for themselves will self-destruct.
We need to care for eachother instead, or we will all self-destruct.
God gave us his word to help guide us into caring for eachother.
THEREFORE:
God must exist, and his word should be the guiding principles we use to prevent ourselves from self-destructing because of our self-interest.

This seems like using the parent-child analogy to deal with god-man...But, whether man is 45 years old in his rocking chair or 450 years old and sitting in heaven, he will always be subordinate to god...Less than god. This is not the parent-child relationship at all...Kids grow up to become the equals of their parents...What this is is more akin to human/master-dog relationship...Where, no matter how old the dog gets, he always remains less than the master...I am nobody's dog.

I think I have said it before, but I will repeat myself.

The purpose for having any kind of unified morality or applied morality (ethics) is to avoid interpersonal conflicts, right? It is interpersonal conflict that represent violations of social norms, mores, and even criminal laws (to include even mundane parking/speeding violations, as they represent a potential hazard for other people...So, conflict). If the purpose of morality then, is to limit conflict, wouldn't you agree that we should base our morality and ethical-calculus on something that does not inherently exhibit or even cause conflict?

We then, have to look at the potential schemes for a source of morality:
Human Nature(Psychology):
This is what you tried to use before, and is not appropriate. Too many different peoples from disparate lands display a very different set of psychological predilictions, based on how their folks raised them, the influence of religions, social pressures, customs, etc...Sure, in a state of nature, it is possible for the weak to bind together and confront the strong, but after the strongest comes the next strongest...And so on, until only a bunch of warring-weaklings attack eachother...So, built-in conflict.
Human Nature(Biology): Well, as we need to eat, and there is potentially a finite food supply, given the right set of circumstances, we will eat eachother...Essentially, as biological beings, we are in constant competition with eachother, and there is no demonstrated universal moral component to our biology...So, built in conflict.
God (religion): This is where most people end the investigation, thinking all morality not only does come from religion, but also SHOULD come from religion...Well, simply put, not everyone is religious. Nor is everyone religious in the same way. Both of these contribute to a conclusion that religion is not the source of morality, and should not be the source...If everyone believed in the same god the same way, and there were unified rules from that god that were accepted by everyone, then sure, religion would be appropriate. Violators then, would be clearly immoral ****s. However, because there are many different religions, different paths, and even different interpretations within the same religion for many faiths, you get built-in conflict if religion forms the basis for morality.

Moving on then, we could address reason, rationality, and actually THINKING about what we ought to have as a basis for our morality.

First, as you intimated, we have Egoism...of course, if everyone is out for themselves, that is inherent conflict, as inevitably, two folks will attempt to obtain the same thing, or go to the same place, and will cause a dispute, based on each being a good and moral person. So, no good.

How about Rational Egoism, where you do what is best for you and the group? Well, what if your needs/wants conflict with the group? Will you choose the group or yourself? That is inner conflict, and if you choose yourself external conflict...Ultimately, even if you choose the group, there will be another group at odds with your group...So, conflict again.

What about some variety of Utilitarianism? Doing the greatest good for the greatest number of people? Well, back to the group thing, two groups in conflict, yaddah yaddah...Or, you get the hero-complex thing...Each person sacrifices so much for the group that he either dies, suffers constantly, or ends up becoming a closet egoist (pretending to work for the group, but secretly works only for himself).

Next, you have some variety of pure reason, in the form of Kantian Imperatives...

I suppose the best way to address Kant's idea of from where we ought to get our morality is: can we establish standardized rules of response for each situation? This categorical imperative might dictate that the right decision in any particular situation, is the decision that would be right in EVERY possible version of that situation ...This, while very sexy, is nearly impossible, and ultimately why Kant and his analysis of morality falls short as a good source for ours by itself...

So, to conclude this very superficial monograph on morality, I suspect that the best way to approach a source of morality is to synthesize a whole from several parts, and shift from one focus to another when conflict begins to arise...

Start with Kantian analysis...Can we make a decision that can be universally applicable in "this" particular instance? If yes, do it...If no, then move on to Utilitarianism...If this causes a hero-problem or group conflict, move to some Rational Egoism variation...If that doesn't work, finally an appeal to pure Egoism might be required, as an acceptance of what Nietzsche called the "will to power" which, in its most basic form means, that: because we are at a minimum biological beings that must eat food, something must die for us to live...At the limit case, that might be another person, but we should try to put as many possible other courses of action between our need to live and someone else's need to live, but ultimately, there may have to be a conflict...Ten, it is time to win.

[slorider18]

i was making my "kid" analogy based on a child 14-24 months old. i figure they are about as "pure" as possible. yes they would have had instruction from mom and dad, but at that age a lot of it still hasn't sunk in.(well with mine anyway ) but when i watch my two girls play, or with another kid around the same age. the thing i regularly watch for is them fighting for a toy. anyway, that's where that was from.

Dragon, i thought your candy store scenario was pretty darn close my toy story.

back to bear, the last paragraph of your post i would say i logical. we always want to come up with the best solution for any problem. What is the consequence(still can't spell) you are avoiding by taking a little of everything when it fits? Are you only trying to avoid the apearance of hypocracy or do you see belief in a "set" of moral values as a sort of an intellectual cop out? Or is it limitation by a set moral code that you are avoiding? Is that a better understanding of your position rather that avoiding something.

And your interpritation of where my last post was going was too indepth. i was still just trying to get us all to agree on the short list i posted earlier.

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by slorider18

i was making my "kid" analogy based on a child 14-24 months old. i figure they are about as "pure" as possible. yes they would have had instruction from mom and dad, but at that age a lot of it still hasn't sunk in.(well with mine anyway ) but when i watch my two girls play, or with another kid around the same age. the thing i regularly watch for is them fighting for a toy. anyway, that's where that was from.

Dragon, i thought your candy store scenario was pretty darn close my toy story.

back to bear, the last paragraph of your post i would say i logical. we always want to come up with the best solution for any problem. What is the consequence(still can't spell) you are avoiding by taking a little of everything when it fits? Are you only trying to avoid the apearance of hypocracy or do you see belief in a "set" of moral values as a sort of an intellectual cop out? Or is it limitation by a set moral code that you are avoiding? Is that a better understanding of your position rather that avoiding something.

And your interpritation of where my last post was going was too indepth. i was still just trying to get us all to agree on the short list i posted earlier.

Both of my kids have shared freely since around 9-10 months old, so no, they don't take toys away or anything like that...


I find conflict in nearly every single set of supposedly moral values; so, instead of experiencing conflict as a fixture of any particular path, I prefer to avoid the conflict as much as possible. Following my above-elucidated moral decision-making is not any kind of attempt at intellectual superiority, but is in fact an attempt to really do the right thing.

If we were all followers of "any" single one of the typical moral plans (egoists, for example, as many Americans are), there is a strong probability that we will do something actually "wrong" in the service of doing something our morality would say is "right"...Stealing, for a simplistic and illustrative example. Is it morally wrong to steal? Yes, but perhaps not if you are starving; but, if there are charitable alternatives to stealing, and we don't take them because we would have to wait longer, or walk farther, etc. we are really doing a wrong thing in the guise of doing the right thing according to our morality. This is what I have been referring to as conflict, and that is all I seek to avoid by having explained a rather convoluted moral code.

However, my particular moral code is somewhat different than I explained above. The stuff I explained was sort of traditional moral-study or traditional ethical foundation, of an introductory nature. My personal code has a slightly different (and dare I say, more sophisticated) aspect.

There is some fairly high-level philosophical work about the mind-body issue, and the route modern ethical/moral investigation is taking, going on the academy right now, and I have been looking into it for about half a decade. There is this whole (new to most people, but not really too new) school of moral philosophy that sort of boils down to this (in very simplified form):

After one has established ones' self as a "moral person" through a certain amount of intellectual work, study, reasoning, and adherence to certain basic principles for decision making (rather than the consequentialism of every traditional scheme of moral choice), then the decision that would be made by that person IS the moral thing to do. Unfortunately, nobody who adheres to any of the traditional schools of moral thought can do this, not because of any inferiority or failing, but because of the conflict-issues of all the paths I mentioned before.



My interpretation of your last post may have gone farther than you were going, but my point about paternalism still holds. Not only for religions, but also for any paternalistic institution, like governments, etc. Paternalism, as a scheme of hierarchical organizational leadership mirroring or explained by use of the analogy for the family, works only as long as the kids grow up. In both religions and governments, the kids never mature.