Why you believe what you believe I

[inked]

Correct, concise, well-phrased! Admirable job, Lief! *hand clapping* +standing ovation+

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I think that when a nonbeliever does good and righteous things in this life, their actions are from and through God.

fair enough, and very well said... i did in fact say earlier that i do believe conversions can come about via religion... i just don't necessarily think god has anything to do with it

but back to this nonbeliever, yet extremely good person... even if i buy the fact that his "goodness" comes from god... if he never chooses to recognize god for whatever reason... maybe deep down he just doesn't sincerely believe god exists, is never convinced throughout his lifetime, and does not want to be insincere... would that person go to heaven?

feel free to answer lief or rÃ*an, yes or no... then as much explanation as you like

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

My question to you - given your worldview, why should Anne Sullivan have bothered with Helen Keller? I mean, Helen would never have known she was missing anything if they just left her wild. Was it a good thing what Anne did with her? Was it "right"? Would it have been a tragedy for Helen to have been left in her wild state, without communication? Why or why not?

well, it was the profession anne choose to practice, so she had a good bit of personal reasons to be successful... and if you read about her real life, there is a lot that the movie fails to mention

we see many people who go to extraordinary effort to do great things for society, sometimes risking their own well-being... MLK, Ghandi, etc... their motivations are also a combination of what is good for the self and good for society... they choose to take personal risk in order to achieve a greater greater good society, because they know it is ultimately good for them and their offspring/families... one can not discount the personal gains of fame and financial security either, as at least part of the picture

(and please, please, please answer my other questions in the post above this one!)

ok, repost the questions you want me to answer and i will try again

[brownjenkins]

dug 'em up

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Let me phrase it another way - IF it is indeed true that the God described in the Bible exists, and it is indeed true that He can help a person who turns to Him to grow immensely in love for others, and you knew this, would you turn to Him for help, or would you prefer to just use your own resources, even though it meant that you would be less loving to others?

i would always continue to use my own resources (it's what i have )... but if something popped up, say like homosexual behavior, that seemed okay by me... and yet i knew it was against the bible, and i accepted the fact that the "bible knows best", obviously i would follow the bible's teachings

ultimately though, i would still be following my own resources, 'cause it is those exact resources that would have lead me to believe in the bible

IF the "no matter how good" story is actually an accurate description of the true state of things, would you still prefer to let "new, and maybe yet untold stories" shape your view of the world, even if some of those stories are totally wrong and could harm others?

i'd judge everything on it's own merits... but, again, if i believed the bible was the ultimate source of the truth... i would use that as the final judge on all "new" stuff... of course, one very important caveat is interpretation... many things in the bible can be interpreted many ways so i would probably formulate my own, since there is no "final authority" here on earth

[Rían]

thanks for being so patient with those questions

I think we're all responsible for how we use our own "resources".


As far as Helen Keller, that's not quite what I meant ... you're focusing more on Anne, while I wanted to focus on Helen (btw, Helen and Teacher is a great book - lots of info on Anne's early life, and their later lives and other helpers, and Helen's life after Anne, etc.).

I'm trying to get a feel of your feeling of the idea of personal worth. Would it have been a tragedy for Helen to have been left alone in her wild, non-communicative state, IYO, independent of whether or not it benefitted Anne or society?

Or maybe just give a post on your ideas of personal worth, and what you base them on, and how these ideas affect your dealings with others.

[Rían]

And who do you think is going to win the Super Bowl?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

And who do you think is going to win the Super Bowl?

the patriots again, of course

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I'm trying to get a feel of your feeling of the idea of personal worth. Would it have been a tragedy for Helen to have been left alone in her wild, non-communicative state, IYO, independent of whether or not it benefitted Anne or society?

Or maybe just give a post on your ideas of personal worth, and what you base them on, and how these ideas affect your dealings with others.

i'm not exactly sure what you mean by "personal worth"

however, helping others out of tragic situations is always a positive thing for the one who is helped, and for the one who helps... it all ties in with my "good for society" statement... the sick, the poor, or the discriminated have negative effects on society as a whole... and even if you live in some rich gated community, the existance of those in less-fortunate circumstances will lead to more violence, crime and disease... negatives that can intrude upon the most guarded of communities

and again, one can not discount the recognition and social status that come to those who do good things for those around them... we like to call these "selfless actions", which might be a bit of a misnomer... even something like throwing oneself upon a grenade to save your comrades is motivated at a gut-level by that sense of "society-preservation" that is developed within most of us as we grow up and realize that the well-being of our society is just as important as our own well-being

[brownjenkins]

btw... what about my question?

but back to this nonbeliever, yet extremely good person... even if i buy the fact that his "goodness" comes from god... if he never chooses to recognize god for whatever reason... maybe deep down he just doesn't sincerely believe god exists, is never convinced throughout his lifetime, and does not want to be insincere... would that person go to heaven?

feel free to answer lief or rÃ*an, yes or no... then as much explanation as you like

for instance, a Mahatma Gandhi, who did many great things for society, was a very firm believer in a god, yet that god was the hindu god... would he go to heaven?

[inked]

brownjenkins,

"i'd judge everything on it's own merits... but, again, if i believed the bible was the ultimate source of the truth... i would use that as the final judge on all "new" stuff... of course, one very important caveat is interpretation... many things in the bible can be interpreted many ways so i would probably formulate my own, since there is no "final authority" here on earth"

I'd judge everything on it's own merits...but again, if I believed the "good of society" was the ultimate source of the truth...I would use that as the final judge on all "new" stuff...of course, one very important caveat is interpretation...many things in the "good of society" can be interpreted many ways so I would probably formulate my own, since there is no "final authority here on earth"

Which is precisely the problem, Sir. Why should your view of the good of society be preferable to Hitler's, or Stalin's or Idi Amin's, or Sadaam Hussein's, or Eva Peron's or Franco's or Mao's or Ho Chi Minh's or Albert Sweitzer's or Albert Einstein's?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

Which is precisely the problem, Sir. Why should your view of the good of society be preferable to Hitler's, or Stalin's or Idi Amin's, or Sadaam Hussein's, or Eva Peron's or Franco's or Mao's or Ho Chi Minh's or Albert Sweitzer's or Albert Einstein's?

unlike some i would never be so bold as to claim my view is the best... my worldview is not what "i would like to see" but what i actually see in the world around me... whether we talk of religion or politics, the most successful societies long-term tend to be the ones that do the best job of balancing self-interest with society's interest (the USA, for example)... the one's that don't, like many you listed, may have successes short-term, but tend to either completely fail, or adjust in such a way over time to move towards that balance

roman catholicism is a good example, by the book, it is quite strict in terms of law and tradition... even more so 1000 years ago... often going against societies self-interest on something like birth control even today... but in the reality of today's world, many if not most catholics do not practice their religion quite so strictly... or they have splintered off over time to "christian" belief systems that lose the more controversial "absolutes"

basically, over time, while there are always those who cling to "tradition"... and even temporary setbacks when certain charismatic individuals try to institute a system more firmly-based in the absolute... be it communists in china, muslims in the middle east, or "socially conservative" politicians in the world's democracies... change wins out, and societies eventually adjust or get left behind

those that change over time tend to be the most successful and peaceful... those that cling to tradition tend to eventually build up enough animosity in the general populace that radical, and often violent, change eventually breaks out

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

Which is precisely the problem, Sir. Why should your view of the good of society be preferable to Hitler's, or Stalin's or Idi Amin's, or Sadaam Hussein's, or Eva Peron's or Franco's or Mao's or Ho Chi Minh's or Albert Sweitzer's or Albert Einstein's?

btw, the quotes from me on this were in response to rÃ*an's stipulation that "if i believed in god, how would i formulate my morals"

i do not believe in god... thus, all morals are relative and there is no "best"... other than what leads to the most peaceful and prosperous future for the human race

[Lizra]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

unlike some i would never be so bold as to claim my view is the best... my worldview is not what "i would like to see" but what i actually see in the world around me... whether we talk of religion or politics, the most successful societies long-term tend to be the ones that do the best job of balancing self-interest with society's interest (the USA, for example)... the one's that don't, like many you listed, may have successes short-term, but tend to either completely fail, or adjust in such a way over time to move towards that balance

roman catholicism is a good example, by the book, it is quite strict in terms of law and tradition... even more so 1000 years ago... often going against societies self-interest on something like birth control even today... but in the reality of today's world, many if not most catholics do not practice their religion quite so strictly... or they have splintered off over time to "christian" belief systems that lose the more controversial "absolutes"

basically, over time, while there are always those who cling to "tradition"... and even temporary setbacks when certain charismatic individuals try to institute a system more firmly-based in the absolute... be it communists in china, muslims in the middle east, or "socially conservative" politicians in the world's democracies... change wins out, and societies eventually adjust or get left behind

those that change over time tend to be the most successful and peaceful... those that cling to tradition tend to eventually build up enough animosity in the general populace that radical, and often violent, change eventually breaks out

Well put Bj! Live in the real world!

[inked]

Well dodged,rather, Lizra!

brownjenkins,

I do not think that you are so blind to your valuation of the good as the absolute standard you allegedly defer. The whole of your response reeks of value judgments which you leave unqualified and without basis. The absolutes may be controversial but that is because they are stated and ranked. One may quibble about those hiearchies and ranks. But in your system the "good of society" is so sancrosanct it cannot be defined as absolute, yet you justify the choice on the basis of ranking outcomes by the same arbitrary standard - yourself, as best I can determine. You have a set of values which function as absolutes in your valuations. Failing to name them absolute does not make them not absolute - it makes them "uncontestable" in any sense, the very embodiment of Big Brother as known in the Fuhrer, Stalin, Mao, and Ho Chi Minh.

While I concur with Lizra that this is a form of reality for many, it is not the optimum reality.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

Well dodged,rather, Lizra!

brownjenkins,

I do not think that you are so blind to your valuation of the good as the absolute standard you allegedly defer. The whole of your response reeks of value judgments which you leave unqualified and without basis. The absolutes may be controversial but that is because they are stated and ranked. One may quibble about those hiearchies and ranks. But in your system the "good of society" is so sancrosanct it cannot be defined as absolute, yet you justify the choice on the basis of ranking outcomes by the same arbitrary standard - yourself, as best I can determine. You have a set of values which function as absolutes in your valuations. Failing to name them absolute does not make them not absolute - it makes them "uncontestable" in any sense, the very embodiment of Big Brother as known in the Fuhrer, Stalin, Mao, and Ho Chi Minh.

While I concur with Lizra that this is a form of reality for many, it is not the optimum reality.

you could not be more wrong... but i'm afraid i'll have to point out your error later

or better yet, read my signature

here's a hint... the key word is change

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

here's a hint... the key word is change

Ah, "change" - the god of the self-proclaimed godless!

brownie, I didn't answer your question because you said Lief OR RÃ*an, and being a trained computer scientist, I realized your condition was met when Lief answered!

I also didn't answer it because ah'm not on the hotseat, m'dear!

But if you would really like me to, then I will.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I also didn't answer it because ah'm not on the hotseat, m'dear!

You're never off the hot-seat... gwahaha!!!

Brownie, I'm just jumping in, so someone may have asked this already. In fact, I bet someone did. So you can either give any length of detail you like, or ignore.

Do you believe in any higher power of undefined, yours, or other definition?

[inked]

It is really simple. If any society defines the good as it chooses, there is no basis on which to judge other societies status quo. If it applies to individuals, there is no basis to judge individuals, as each is equally arbiter of the good.

That is not what you truly act on in your defense of the good of society, brownjenkins. If it were, you would have no basis for comparison. And you could not recognize "change" as for the better or not. It would merely be difference.

[Nurvingiel]

One can base one's standards on being a decent human being without religion.

Erm... sorry Brownie... Um... my other hot seat question to you is do you agree or disagree with the above statement.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

One can base one's standards on being a decent human being without religion.

Erm... sorry Brownie... Um... my other hot seat question to you is do you agree or disagree with the above statement.

i can base my standards on being a decent buddhist ie following basic moral teachings