Dante`s Inferno- what level are you in?

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

You really got me on a roll there with that post, Lotesse, suggesting I was done for! The challenge stirred in me something fierce and I came back kicking!

I knew you would, if I made that little comment! I've gotten to know you pretty well by now, I guess. You LOVE debating so much, and I know you, you HATE to let a good argument end. And you always gotta have the last word, even if it's to concede a point.

HOWEVER, I still like Blackheart's angle better here. No offense! But you know me.

[Lotesse]

^^^^

[Lief Erikson]

You bet .

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Martin Luther King Jr. wanted the whites no longer to have the best seats on buses and cafeterias all the time. No longer to have first dibs on housing et al. This is a direct economical kind of harm to their situation that he brought about. It was in good cause though. Causing harm to others thus sometimes should be done when it is in a good cause.

There's obviously a difference in semantics here. Pain is a temporary situation. Harm is something long term, it's damage. Are you trying to tell me that the end of segregation brought economic harm to the south?

I would disagree. I point out below that doing evil in the name of good is not good... it is a morally relatavistic viewpoint of necessity. If you are stating this, then how can you reconcile that MLK could be a moral absolutist while rationalizing that he is harming someone "for their own good" ???

Stopping Hitler from conquering the world would be another case where causing direct harm to people is in good cause and justified.

So a question.. which would have been better.. directly assassinating Hitler, or having to go through hundreds of thousands of politicaly trapped or deluded germans to get to him?

WWII was not a good cause. It was a necessary cause. That is the failure of the "Evil is good because it is necessary, and necessary is good" rationalization.

Was it really neccesary to firebomb Dresden? Or Tokyo? War may be a necessity at times, but it is never a "good cause"...

MLK was a Christian, not a Jew. He did adhere to the best of his ability though to the written word of God. He did have absolute values. I can argue this from his "Letter from the Birmingham Jail," where he used the Bible as evidence to back his claims. If he was a relativist, he would have understood that the Bible can be interpreted anyway anyone wants, and he wouldn't have tried to convince his argument using it. However, he used the Bible in an argumentative way, taking it as a postulate that it was literally true (I can prove this from textual passages) and arguing from there against the white moderates.

I disagree again. One letter on one issue does not a philosophy make. MLK had numerous conflicting beliefs. A little bit of research will show this to be true, just as it is true of any human.

What you are saying when you say he had absolute values is that under no conceiveable circumstance would there ever be a time when he would think it expediant or NECESSARY to ignore those values. That is not human.

I recently addressed the point of the Christians not obeying all the written forms of the law in a post in the "Religious Knowledge" thread in General Messages. We can continue that line of debate there, if you like .

No need to. I'm well aware that the old torah doesn't apply to christains after the "new commandments". That was an example of the problems with using a document containing conflicting directives to advocate that someone is using an absolute moral standard. The entire fact that he was arguing with other members of the clergy should illuminate this problem.

I'll go one step further and state that one of the reasons MLK was an effective proponant of Civil Rights was BECAUSE he was possesed of a degree of moral relativity.

Advocating the breaking of unjust laws because they are a "code that is out of harmony with the moral law" is counter to the long held idea of divine right. What if the Pope had expressed a position favoring segregation? For goodness sakes... the man's name is Martin Luther...

Just because someone is pointing to a moral value that has more merit than another moral value doesn't mean they are holding an absolute moral value; on the contrary it means they are engaged in RANKING the RELATIVE merits of two conflicting moral values.

Anyway this has become a side issue to the question of a utopia. I won't bother to address it unless it somehow gets related back to the topic

___________________________________________

You're changing the subject, evading my point. Oh well .

Not really... "What matters is that they exist. The fact that we don't know about them doesn't make them bland."

No but the fact that they would have grown up in a world without conflict would mean de facto that the person they became would never have existed...

As I said before, I believe evil is linked with death, and that when evil ceases to exist, death will cease to exist. Thus everyone in the world will have already experienced and learned the lessons pain has to teach (or that God wanted them to learn through pain). Then there will be new things to learn. There are many possible achievements and fields of study, many challenges for humanity without conflict with one another..

Where does one even begin...

Lets start with the idea of still needing to learn... WHY? Ignorance is a form of imperfection... No one will need to learn anything, they'll already know it all...

Of course there wouldn't be any conflict, no one will need anything. Desire would be extinguished...Possibly no one will even need to interact with others...

Harmony, good sir, is not the result of a million instruments all playing the same note... but the sweet interaction between notes that could conflict, but instead find a common ground.

Forgetting my eternal life, eternal curiosity religious views, I'll turn back to the perspective that says we have a finite lifetime in utopia and curiosity will end up being culled out of our genes (though this is uncertain; homosexuality somehow manages to stay, if you are one of those who thinks it's related to genes, while being a constant detriment in our gene pool).

Oddly no one ever called it homosexuality until the 1800's... A trait is never just genes, it is also environmentaly driven. There isn't a gene for homosexuality, there are a set of traits that might predispose someone to same gender preferences in a particular environment. You might think that a subtle difference, but it isn't. People have genes for red hair, not for behaviors...

Stating that those types of tendancies are a detriment to the gene pool is also just plain silly. If human males had no nurturing instincts whatsoever we'd be in pretty sad shape now wouldn't we?

Curiousity would also cease to be expressed. At least as curiousity. The traits would likely come out in some other direction impossible to predict. Eventually, after enough time for selection to take effect, if the conditions which cause those tendancies to be expressed as a curiousity behavior pattern were to re-emerge, the behavior pattern would no longer be expressed as curiousity, but as something else.

Do you honestly think that the violence inherent in humanity could possibly continue for millenia with our species continually gouging itself but never killing itself off completely?

In a word, yes. Easily, in fact. If you want to look at the principle of extinction, which species are the ones that go extinct? The ones that settle down and adapt to a niche so firmly that they are then unable to re-adapt to changed conditions. I have little fear that humanity is going to suffer that fate.

Millenia of peace and joy for all, falling into final blandness, is far better than a few centuries left of human hell, IMO. Blandness may be a disappointing and dismal ending, but at least we'd still be happy .

How would you know you were happy? What joy? What peace? How do these things you talk about exist in the absence of their opposites? Without Sorrow there is no such thing as Joy. Without War there is no concept of Peace. That is what I mean by blandness... No Lows.. but no Highs either...

If violence and evil remain though, we will experience far less happiness, great misery, and swift extinction. So there's a choice as to which end is preferrable.

Your conclusion doesn't follow since your preceding arguments are invalid. Without violence and evil you can't have any happiness at all. Without violence and evil, we would swiftly become ossified into an ecological niche, and subject to extinction through sudden environmental change.

First of all, there is only one verse in the Bible that says eternal torture. That verse is in the Book of Revelation, a vision, and visions frequently have symbolic meaning rather than literal.

Wait... now it's invalid because it's only mentioned once? Or it's invalid because it's in a book filled with symbology? Are you seriously stating you want to apply this argument?

There are numerous passages that say there is eternal fire and there is a place that mentions eternal destruction. Jesus said that body and soul will be destroyed in hell, but he didn't say they'd be eternally tortured in hell. That the fire should be eternal is logical, for it is justice. That the people burning in the fire should be forever doesn't necessarily follow.

Wait you're bringing this up in an thread entitled "DANTE's INFENO" ???? From what you are stating, there is NO HELL, only a burning purgatory...

Not to mention that as such it would precisely meet my criteria for a slice of conflict in an otherwise "perfect" utopia...

So there is clearly justice at work here, and the claim that there is eternal torture espoused in the Bible is tenuous.

There's enough support for it to convince thousands of Christians world wide... I wouldn't call it tenuous... You are being disingenious. Aside from the christian bible there are also a number of apocryphia from the intermediate period between the codification of the Torah and the rise of christianity that state that hell is indeed eternal. But of course, those aren't canon. But the statement about eternal gnashing of teeth IS...

But I still think it's damn near hilarious to have this argument in a thread about Dante's Inferno...

____________________________________

You say that because this is the humanity you experience day to day. You haven't witnessed perfection in people.

Lets address this point by point. No, thankfully I haven't witnessed any perfection in humanity.

In my view, humanity lost some of what made it human when it sinned.

Really? what made humanity any different from say... angels? Being incarnate? Why didn't we lose the bodies then?

It embraced slavery, lost the freedom to make all of its decisions.

I must point out that in the very literal sense of the term a christian is a slave to god, and his decisions are made by him. Joyfully perhaps, but your point makes no sense in the context of sin, except in the context of man no longer being a slave to god and setting himself up as a master, but that means that he actually is making his OWN decisions.

It had no choice but to do evil, but freedom was part of God's plan for our race. We haven't the freedom to avoid doing evil, but are enslaved to evil unless set free. That loss of freedom is a loss to our nature as humans.

What the? We had no choice but to do evil but we had freedom planned for us? Excuse me? Doesn't sound like freedom to me, unless you're referring to some other kind of freedom... You eat one apple and lose the ability to make any decisions after that? That is preposterous. It makes a mockery of personal responsibility. It would make "the devil made me do it" a rational legal defense.

I already have taken and argued that step on other threads. I believe evil is necessary for the learning of certain lessons, but beyond a point, it becomes unnecessary. ...

At which point we are no longer human. You may want to quibble and say that we are humans "fallen from grace" and that we are "enslaved by evil" but what I hear is you are saying we are "sub-human". So be it then. I'd rather be sub-human than "human"....

We would be better off without evil. Small and big evil, if we could be rid of all of it while maintaining all the good and replacing the evil and lower good with greater and greater good, we'd live in a far more pleasing environment. Our world could be a lot better and more enjoyable a place than it is.

I would be mean and insist that you define good, but Socrates already did that far better than I ever could. I'll content myself with pointing out that what you suggest is an impossibility given that humans remain human.

And since I enjoy humans, I disagree with your statement that the world would be a more enjoyable place, and insist that you define "better"... That's a joke by the way...

[katya]

Oh my.. I think everything seems to be ok for now. I`ll check back later. Carry on.

[inked]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

Never mind, Monsieur Erikson, I found it - you're 8th level. My bad; I couldn't find your post until I looked back last page, where you called Inked on his pompous-sounding "the least I'd get would be purgatory - I'm a christian" remark. I forgot to tell you, I thought that was so cool when you responded "Then what does that make me;" NICE!! That was cool, Lief.

Not pompous, Lotesse! Fact! In Lief's case, I think the same, in fact!

But, I don't make the final judgment on anyone. Unlike some politically correct types I can think of...

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

Was it really neccesary to firebomb Dresden? Or Tokyo? ..

Actually, YES.

Churchill had to let the Luftwaffe bomb a city in the UK or risk them changing the codes; Dresden was bombed because of its strategic infrastructure. The fire storm that developed was unpredicted.

Tokyo? The buildings were mostly wood; same senario. ....remember Pearl Harbor?

[inked]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

Harmed who? No one? How is it harming someone to force them to confront their behavior? It might be PAINFUL.. oo look we're back where we started..

IT's ok if everyone agrees you should do it according to current societal standards, but don't go using any other ideas which might be not PC.

Originally Posted by Blackheart

There WERE other extremist groups however who did harm people, and plotted worse. Should they have done those things that actually HARMED people? Even in a good cause? I would say no...

Nor do I think that MLK had an absolute moral standard. If one followed the absolute moral standard outlined in Leviticus, slavery is legal and permissable. Obviously he had other beliefs, meaning that he was in fact using a different definition of morality than the "written word of god".

Agreed on paragraph one. MLK appealed to the higher absolute standard to repudiate the societal standard in your Lev citation. He was holding the social situation in Lev to the higher standard of Christian moral standards as noted by Paul in Philemon and Ephesians. That was why slavery was abolished in GB and the USA. You may note that it is rampant throughout the world yet.

Originally Posted by Blackheart

What about growing up in a world without conflict? Sure sounds like it would be conducive to blandness...

But that's sort of the point... In a perfect utopia, we're not talking about a couple of centuries... we're talking about millenia of stable, conflict free society. Curiousity might even CAUSE conflict... it would eventually be eradicated.

Curiosity would be the least likely to cause conflict, BH. It's the people and the behaviours known as the seven capital sins that cause conflict and have always thwarted the attempted utopias throughout history. Original sin is the one empirically verifiable truth of Christianity - as GK Chesterton observed. It is also the one empirically verifiable state of all known societies for which documentation or observation exists. You can call it power plays for goods, sex, relationships, materiel, et cetera, but it remains human fault which destroys human relationships with each other and with God.

Originally Posted by Blackheart

There are worse things than dying. I won't bother to argue about a metaphyscal realm, but in a worldy realm yes, there are indeed worse things than dying. Does that make them more or less evil?

I'd need your philosophical rationale for judgment to deal with this specifically, BH, but it certainly sounds hiearchical and predicates some values as more worthy than others.

Originally Posted by Blackheart

I will however point out though that such a metaphysical realm is also predicated on the ETERNAL suffering of millions of people who were not "chosen". I certainly wouldn't want to be put in that postion. I have too highly a devoloped sense of guilt. I wouldn't be able to enjoy a minute of paradise.

False. To be predicated is to come after. The metaphysical realm existed before the creation. It cannot logically be predicated on the nonexistent. Which is the precise reality Christianity conveys: humanity is derivative and to be truly human one needs acknowledge that reality and align with it. Resistance is futile, not because of arbitrarily imposed punishment, but because nonexistence is that without the Creator. God does not depend on humanity for existence. Humanity does depend on God.

Originally Posted by Blackheart

Take it one step further then. If pain is there for a reason, then, following your logic, evil would be there for a reason also. Now of course we can argue all day about what that reason is, but the crux of the argument is the neccesity of evil.

False. The connection you make assumes that pain is an evil. It is not. Pain is a fact of physical existence. If it is absent, one cannot avoid injury. Note the rare exemplars of individuals without a sense of pain - children who must be watched constantly for injury prevention, patients with leprosy who cannot feel the rats eating their fingers or toes while asleep, the paraplegics who cannot feel bedsores, etc.

The Christian argument is that evil is derivative. There is not one thing purely evil because evil is derivative and must have a good upon which to exist - even if that existence is destructive (say, Lord Voldemort, for example).

Evil was a potential, that is, the choice of the lesser good when a higher was possible, or self-will instead of obedience, until it was actualized by personal choice. The Adversary aspired to be God and to take the throne for himself, derivative creature that he was. That actualization brought evil into existence. And, so, Adam (humanity). Unable to know evil as potential without actualization, humanity chose to make it existent and knowable in the purely human limitation. Still so chooses, by the way, - empirically verifiable!

Originally Posted by Blackheart

You can take it several ways, the limited viewpoint... It isn't evil we just don't understand it...

The "evil is an illusion" gambit...If it's neccesary, then how can it be evil?

Or any other number of rationalizations.

Christianity won't allow the evil is an illusion gambit. Christianity asserts that the existence of evil by human choice is inescapable by humanity and that God did act so as to free us in Jesus of Nazareth and by means of His Incarnation, Passion, Death, Burial, and Resurrection.

For illusion, you must go to Hinduism or Buddhism or modern materialism-only, though in different modes of understanding the illusion(s).

Originally Posted by Blackheart

My personal opinion is that we live in an imperfect world, because if it were any other way we wouldn't be human. People who ascend to some metaphysical realm of perfection really aren't going to be human anymore.

Why would they need curiosity? Leaning? What would they possibly need or want?

Your attribution of curiosity to imperfection is interesting but that substantiates the existence of the potential for imperfection in humans - not in curiosity. If EVE, in the story hadn't been curious, she wouldn't have listened to the serpent talk about the knowledge of good and evil or being as God, would she? So humanity is not humanity by imperfection. Curiosity can be falsely ordered and partake of the nature of evil, that is, disobedience. But it did not come into existence at that point. To be fully human would be enable to be totally curious about any and everything without danger of disordered curiosity.

People who become fully human aren't going to be restrained by the state of affairs considered normative due to human experience in a fallen world. And Christians are, avowedly, going to achieve divinization, partaking of the divine nature, the life of the Holy Trinity. There's an eternity of curiosity and discovery to be had and not limited to merely what we can conceive of as questions now. There is a reason humans only use about 10% of their grey matter!

Originally Posted by Blackheart

They probably WOULD sit around all day singing praise to the Lord....

Not MY idea of heaven or a reward... I LIKE humanity, flaws and all... But then I'm sort of a humanist at heart...

Yes to the first sentence. I agree with the second insofar as it contains all the standard misunderstandings of imagery.

I like humanity, it's people I can't stand is a PEANUTS truism from Lucy. But God doesn't merely like humanity, He loves us enough to die for us and expects us to catch the disease and so love our fellow humans whether we like them or not.

Originally Posted by Blackheart

If there was ever a utopia, a perfect realm, it would HAVE to include some section, some slice or smidgen of conflict. Otherwise it wouldn't be a utopia for humans at all...

Again, a false assumption. Unless you define utopia as the absence of conflict, which seems rather the inverse of a true utopian hope for concord in the face of conflict, the reasoning is circular.

And, we aren't promised utopia as Christians. We are promised that we shall be as Christ. That job description was full of conflict and pain and misunderstanding as well as eternal joy unspeakable.

I opt for the fully human, divinized, resurrected, regenerate Life - not the merely human constrained by my imagination and limited world view.

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by Spock

Actually, YES.

Churchill had to let the Luftwaffe bomb a city in the UK or risk them changing the codes; Dresden was bombed because of its strategic infrastructure. The fire storm that developed was unpredicted.

Tokyo? The buildings were mostly wood; same senario. ....remember Pearl Harbor?

So that means it was good thing right? Because it was necessary, that means it's right and good and acceptable?

See the subtle distinction? Probably not very subtle, but there must be something tricky about it, because people seem to miss it an awful lot in the "Modern World".

Evil maybe be necessary, but it can't be good. If it were good, then where's the distinction? Only in an imperfect world can you have such utter nonsense as: doing evil in the cause of good...

Any time an act that harms someone is "necessary" you really have to examine it with a magnifying glass. Otherwise any "good" that comes out of a harmful act is likely to be outweighed by the evil...

Oh and I'd say dropping incendiaries on civilian population centers is definitely something that deserves to be under intense scrutiny before anyone says that more good than evil, or if you prefer growth than harm, comes from such an act...

When does necessity outweigh moral or ethical imperatives? In the most familiar form, when do the ends justify the means? Is it justifiable to burn thousands of "enemy" civilians in order to prevent hundreds of friendly combat casualties? If not, then what's the ratio? 1:1? 2:1? 5:1?

What's the best return on our investment of good for evil? At what point does an act become so "Evil" that it outweighs the Necessity, and become UNnecessary?

These should be the kinds of questions that military planners lose decades of sleep over. Otherwise they might get bumped down a level or two... thought frankly ,IIRC, in Dante's Inferno Intentions count strongly.

Something I find dissatisfying, since I feel that results are much more indicative of the forethought someone puts into their actions....

[inked]

Blackheart,

cross-posted; please see above. Gracias!

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by inked

IT's ok if everyone agrees you should do it according to current societal standards, but don't go using any other ideas which might be not PC.

That could have been clearer and is open to several different interpretations.

He was holding the social situation in Lev to the higher standard of Christian moral standards as noted by Paul in Philemon and Ephesians.

Which would mean he was engaged in ranking the relative merits of conflicting moral systems.

Curiosity would be the least likely to cause conflict, BH. It's the people and the behaviours known as the seven capital sins that cause conflict and have always thwarted the attempted utopias throughout history.

Actually I always sort of favored the idea that it was the fact that humans are unable to completely subsume their individuality into sytems that fail to allow for it.

Original sin is the one empirically verifiable truth of Christianity - as GK Chesterton observed. It is also the one empirically verifiable state of all known societies for which documentation or observation exists. You can call it power plays for goods, sex, relationships, materiel, et cetera, but it remains human fault which destroys human relationships with each other and with God.

Sorry but I don't subscribe to original sin. I'm aware of the philosopical concept however. I do not however agree that there is empirical evidence that all humans are tainted by sin. First you would need to supply some empirical evidence that sin actually exists... a rather difficult proposition. Are you sure you aren't speaking allegorically?

I'd need your philosophical rationale for judgment to deal with this specifically, BH, but it certainly sounds hiearchical and predicates some values as more worthy than others.

Don't most (if not all) philospophical and moral systems (at least in practical application) follow that standard?

False. To be predicated is to come after. EXCERPTED, not because of arbitrarily imposed punishment, but because nonexistence is that without the Creator. God does not depend on humanity for existence. Humanity does depend on God.

By all accounts, not everyone shall be saved. Those that aren't saved, suffer. Eternally. SO you're avoiding the issue by saying that it's THEIR fault they are suffering eternally...

Makes no distinction to me if was their fault.... I'll adress the rest and specifically why it doesn't matter to me later.

[Lotesse]

Well I, for one, wait with bated breath for more from you, Blackheart! I always get stoked reading your counterpoint arguments; your style is the bomb, you are an excellent debater, and I literally ALWAYS look forward to what you have to post in these threads. You, sir, are a fantastic breath of fresh air in these argument threads. Have I mentioned all this before? Well, it always bears repeating! So glad you're here in Entmoot!!!

[inked]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

That could have been clearer and is open to several different interpretations.

Precisely. E.g., it's not acceptable for Nazi's or Stalinists by common consent and world warfare. But, it is also not acceptable if PC is your abiding moral value.

Originally Posted by Blackheart

Which would mean he was engaged in ranking the relative merits of conflicting moral systems.

Which would mean he was ranking within a moral system of conflicting hiearchies of values - not different systems, but different emphases.

Originally Posted by Blackheart

Actually I always sort of favored the idea that it was the fact that humans are unable to completely subsume their individuality into sytems that fail to allow for it.

Which came first humans or systems? Individuals or societies? By your rationale, no humans fail just the system. That is not the witness of multiple individuals in multiple systems who say that the fault lies within themselves (cf. Buddha, Ghandi, Paul, etc). What say you about that?

{QUOTE=Blackheart] Sorry but I don't subscribe to original sin. I'm aware of the philosopical concept however. I do not however agree that there is empirical evidence that all humans are tainted by sin. First you would need to supply some empirical evidence that sin actually exists... a rather difficult proposition. Are you sure you aren't speaking allegorically?[/quote]

Slavery, prostitution, drug dealers, blue-collar criminals, white-collar criminals, al-quaeda, the Peron regime in Chile in the 80's, the communists in any country you can name (but including Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, etc., etc.),
capitalists in the absolute pursuit of unmitigated profits, Hitler, Nazis, Fascists, Mussolini, Idi Amin, child molesters, rapists, murderers, those who engage in biochemical warfare, adulterers, liars, cheaters, self-aggrandizers, racists, etc.

Enough?

Sin is glaringly obvious. REcall Einstein's comment: "Whether or not you can observe a thing depends on the theory you use. It is the theory which decides what can be observed." That is true of physical reality and certainly true of spiritual reality. I am not speaking allegorically but practically. Watch your local evening news and tell me that the human tendency to corrupt everything is not merely an observation of Dwarves and Elves in Tolkien.

Originally Posted by Blackheart

Don't most (if not all) philospophical and moral systems (at least in practical application) follow that standard?

I cannot place your referent to 'that standard'. Please elucidate. IF you meant what I said about hiearchies of value on moral standards, then, yes.
All societal valuations of moral standards come about by the valuation of specific moral qualities. E.g., the Spartans, courage; the early Romans, familias et patrias; the Communists, abdication of the individual to the state; the Republicans, subsumption of the state to the individuals of the state - but all are merely emphasizing one aspect of the moral above others, not inventing new systems of morality. Do you know of a culture that truly valued cowardice as the pre-eminent virtue? Can you imagine such?

Originally Posted by Blackheart

By all accounts, not everyone shall be saved. Those that aren't saved, suffer. Eternally. SO you're avoiding the issue by saying that it's THEIR fault they are suffering eternally...

Makes no distinction to me if was their fault.... I'll adress the rest and specifically why it doesn't matter to me later.

I'm not avoiding an issue, BH, I'm pointing out a logical fallacy. Eternity is not predicated on human existence.

Your point is, I suspect, that you do not like the reality that what one does as indicative of what one is has longterm consequences. The Ted Bundy's of the world are fortunately uncommon, but their behaviours define them. How should it be different for you or I merely because we are not serial murderers?
As Jesus pointed out, the origin of murder or lust or avarice is the human heart in hate, diordered desire, or worship of the material. Sadaam's use of nerve gas against the Kurds originated in his mind and heart and will before it was actualized; so are our faults and failures.

Do you really think that the world would equate all behaviours as equal and without content?

[Blackheart]

Continued briefly due to time constraints.

Originally Posted by inked

False. The connection you make assumes that pain is an evil. It is not. Pain is a fact of physical existence. If it is absent, one cannot avoid injury. Note the rare exemplars of individuals without a sense of pain - children who must be watched constantly for injury prevention, patients with leprosy who cannot feel the rats eating their fingers or toes while asleep, the paraplegics who cannot feel bedsores, etc.

Err, no. If you read back, I equated pain as a precurser to growth. It is neccesary, but don't confuse necessity with evil, or good. HARM on the other hand, something that causes damage, and damage being a long term detriment to growth, you can associate with evil if you like, but that may or may not be so.

But regardless of all the semantic quibbling, your objection misses the point. If pain is a necessity imposed by some cosmic entity, then it CAN follow (and I make the argument that it DOES follow) that evil is a necessity (of the human condition) imposed by an outside cosmic agency.

Christianity won't allow the evil is an illusion gambit. Christianity asserts that the existence of evil by human choice is inescapable by humanity ....
For illusion, you must go to Hinduism or Buddhism or modern materialism-only, though in different modes of understanding the illusion(s).

If you note, I was pointing out the shortcomings of such rationalizations. If you will also note, I pointed out the necessity of evil to the human condition. You can call it inescapable, but that is just looking at it from the other side of the telescope.

The Christian argument is that evil is derivative. There is not one thing purely evil because evil is derivative and must have a good upon which to exist - even if that existence is destructive (say, Lord Voldemort, for example).

Which relates to pointing out that it is a necessary condition of the human experience how? If it were a condition imposed by an outside entity, it could still be derivative from precursory conditions like.. free will.

So humanity is not humanity by imperfection. Curiosity can be falsely ordered and partake of the nature of evil, that is, disobedience. But it did not come into existence at that point. To be fully human would be enable to be totally curious about any and everything without danger of disordered curiosity.

And there is the fundamental difference. You call it imperfection. I call it; the state of things AS THEY ARE. The human experience does not exist in a vacuum. If you change the environment, change the "rules of reality" you are changing the very definition of what it means to be human. If you change the definition, you might as well change the name. Continuing to call them human is disingenious.

It sounds like you've crossed into thinking that I equated curiousity with evil. I pointed out that there was no NEED for curiousity in a realm where everything is already known, and that continued display of such a trait would lead to disorder. Why would you be curious about something you already know everything about? Saying that you could be fully human in such a realm is a bit of a misnomer, if you regard curiousity as part of the human experience.

People who become fully human aren't going to be restrained by the state of affairs considered normative due to human experience in a fallen world. And Christians are, avowedly, going to achieve divinization, partaking of the divine nature, the life of the Holy Trinity. There's an eternity of curiosity and discovery to be had and not limited to merely what we can conceive of as questions now. There is a reason humans only use about 10% of their grey matter!

Lets be done with calling them human. If it makes you feel better you can say former humans who have transcended the mortal realm, or some such. Or "Angels" if that is too long. After all they've achieved "divinization"...

But you have still failed to tell me why such a creature would need such a trait as curiousity, if they partake of omnescience...

As a side note, humans use 100% of their brain. They only activate about 10% of it at a time (what is refereed to as "attention"). The odd notion that 90% of our brain is unmapped and unused, lying fallow, is a misunderstanding from people who have misquoted or misunderstood how basic neural networking functions.

But God doesn't merely like humanity, He loves us enough to die for us and expects us to catch the disease and so love our fellow humans whether we like them or not.

And so why would someone accept that a particular individual is irredeemable and therefore doomed to an eternity of suffering. Not justice, not correction, but permanant suffering, with no real understandable or concievable purpose. Frankly oblivion would preferable to eternal suffering.

Again, a false assumption. Unless you define utopia as the absence of conflict, which seems rather the inverse of a true utopian hope for concord in the face of conflict, the reasoning is circular.

You might have noticed that that WAS the point I was already aiming at. In otherwords, MY definition of UTOPIA INCLUDED conflict. A small slice of it at the very least. Someone ELSE had defined utopia as the absence of conflict. You may need to read back a few posts. But thank you for at least pointing out that a utopia without conflict is a false assumption, I was working up to it in a less brusk manner...

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by inked

Precisely. E.g., it's not acceptable for Nazi's or Stalinists by common consent and world warfare. But, it is also not acceptable if PC is your abiding moral value.

I'm afraid that is even less clear. What are you trying to say? Are you trying to argue that white southerners are less well off economically or politically in a non-segregated society?

Which would mean he was ranking within a moral system of conflicting hiearchies of values - not different systems, but different emphases.

They are different systems. You can refer to them as sub-systems if you like, but that's quibbling. Baptist fundamentalists for example, have a different moral system than catholics, even if they are both based on christian traditions.

But that's still beside the point, if you are engaged in ranking different values, you are engaging in relativism.

Which came first humans or systems? Individuals or societies? By your rationale, no humans fail just the system. That is not the witness of multiple individuals in multiple systems who say that the fault lies within themselves (cf. Buddha, Ghandi, Paul, etc). What say you about that?

I think I already said it. "humans are unable to completely subsume their individuality into sytems that fail to allow for it." Did I fail to state it clearly enough? What do you say about the fact that all the humans you point out then went on to create NEW systems of moral conduct? Ones that were, perhaps, able to tolerate individuality better.

And yes, I would say that it's not humans that fail, it is the society they exist within. Asking which came first, humans or society is like asking whether chickens or eggs came first. It is meaningless noise. Humans do not exist outside the bounds of society, unless you are going to somehow clone then and drop them off as an infant in the wilderness and expect them to survie...

Slavery, prostitution, drug dealers, blue-collar criminals, white-collar criminals, al-quaeda, the Peron regime in Chile in the 80's, the communists in any country you can name (but including Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, etc., etc.),
capitalists in the absolute pursuit of unmitigated profits, Hitler, Nazis, Fascists, Mussolini, Idi Amin, child molesters, rapists, murderers, those who engage in biochemical warfare, adulterers, liars, cheaters, self-aggrandizers, racists, etc.

Enough?

All you have done is provide a list of atrocities, social problems, and individuals who were considered evil. No where have you pointed out what makes these individuals or problems sinful. You just assume that they are, because you are assuming the existence of sin. You cannot provide a list of examples and point to them as empirical evidence for a class or category which you cannot define empirically.

You CAN however use them as correlational items. But that is different topic, since my original objection was to the word empirical. You haven't even tried to point out why these things are considered evil, nor have you considered if there were any mitigating factors due to necessity.

Sin is glaringly obvious. REcall Einstein's comment: "Whether or not you can observe a thing depends on the theory you use. It is the theory which decides what can be observed." That is true of physical reality and certainly true of spiritual reality. I am not speaking allegorically but practically. Watch your local evening news and tell me that the human tendency to corrupt everything is not merely an observation of Dwarves and Elves in Tolkien.

You should be careful in using that quote. There are competing theories that account for the data just as well, if not better... Models that actually can be based empirically, since they describe set conditions and are based on other underlying theories of social interaction.

The objection was not to the existence of sin, but to the idea that you can EMPIRICALLY verify the existence of a philosopical or spiritual concept.

It would be of little purpose to deny the existence of a concept like sin in a discussion about Dant'es inferno, now wouldn't it?

The concept of ORIGINAL sin however, is a distinction between two philosophical constructs. The idea that all humans are tainted from birth is objectionable to me, because it bases the flaw on something humans have no control over, the past. To hold someone accountable for something they have no control over is not an act of justice.

The closest concept to it which I will concede to, is the idea that if humans exist within a flawed society, then they are rapidly converted to the "sins" of the society they exist within.

I cannot place your referent to 'that standard'. Please elucidate. IF you meant what I said about hiearchies of value on moral standards, then, yes.

Yes that is what I meant. Which means that, as much as we would like to think that there is an absolute moral value out there, all systems in their practical application at least, realize the neccesity of some relativism.

but all are merely emphasizing one aspect of the moral above others, not inventing new systems of morality. Do you know of a culture that truly valued cowardice as the pre-eminent virtue? Can you imagine such?

Survival. Mid-20c United states...

Yes new values do arrive. And they are integrated into, and on top of, old traditions. New values do arise, because the world is ever changing. They get related back to earlier traditions, because traditions are useful for certain things, one of them being a comparison of the relative value of "values"...

I'm not avoiding an issue, BH, I'm pointing out a logical fallacy. Eternity is not predicated on human existence.

I must point out that whether or not eternity is predicated on the existence of humanity has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that eternity is a postulated condition of a christian afterlife. You can say it is predicated on the existence of god, but it makes absolutely no practical difference for the purpose of the discussion.

Your point is, I suspect, that you do not like the reality that what one does as indicative of what one is has longterm consequences. The Ted Bundy's of the world are fortunately uncommon, but their behaviours define them. How should it be different for you or I merely because we are not serial murderers?

Your assumption is off the mark. At no point did I suggest that individuals should not suffer the consequences of their actions. What I did point out, is that eternal suffering is of no purpose, allows no growth or change, and is in fact a form of harm, not pain. Harm being permanant damage.

Since you are postulating the existence of a divine justice, one would assume that it would take some concept of the idea of a fair punishment. Or even rehabilitation. Even the worst individual that has ever existed, lets take your example of Ted Bundy, given the postulated existence of eternity, the worst things that he ever did will be temporary. Therefore, no matter what punishment is chosen, to make it eternal makes it unjust, because of the disproportionate effect.

As Jesus pointed out, the origin of murder or lust or avarice is the human heart in hate, diordered desire, or worship of the material.

Which actually has nothing to do with what I am pointing out. I think I pointed out before that IT DOES NOT MATTER WHERE the origin of the sin was. So what if all of humanity is irredeemable and burdened with sin, even "original sin".

WHAT does that have to do with the idea that eternal punishment even roughly approximates justice?

Do you really think that the world would equate all behaviours as equal and without content?

Oddly enough, if you read back, you'll note that I am arguing against the existence of an absolute moral value...
And stated quite firmly that the imposition of an absolute moral standard does MORE harm than good... which is another way of saying that it does more evil than good.

So no I don't really think that all behaviors are equal, since that was my original point... Obviously NEITHER did Dante, since he postulated several different layers of hell... though frankly one is hard put to choose any of them as less harsh, since they are all eternal...

I seriously think you are missing the entire point of the original discussion, which was whether or not avoiding sin was always a good thing. Which is how we got onto the discussion of necessity. If it is necesary, then it is unavoidable. If it is unavoidable and necessary, then avoiding it completely may actually NOT be a "good" thing.

Hence the exhortation to "moderation in all things"

Which was countered by resorting to a utopian ideal. Much of the following discussion was related to the problems of perfection and remaining human within the framework of a utopian ideal. In other words a continuing discussion of the problems of imposing the absolute upon humanity which exists within an imperfect world.

But the discussion seems to have moved away from the original point. I have tried to point it back towards the original thread, that being a discussion of the philosophical merits, or lack thereof, of Dante's idea of hell...

To restate some of the salient points of the side discussion:

I pointed out that pain was a necessary precursor to growth and learning.

Pain is not neccesarily evil.

Pain is not equivilant to harm, pain being a temporary phenomenon, whereas harm is "permanant" and stifles growth.

You can roughly substitute the terms growth for good, and harm for evil...

Those are all semantic distinctions. The meat of the matter is that eternal punishment would seem more of a harm than a growth factor. In other words, more of an evil than a good.

People are objecting that it's not god's fault that they are punished eternally, it's the fault of humanity, because humanity has at it's core original sin, or some other flaw.

To which I have been pointing out, bullshit, humanity did not design this system under it's postulated rules. To hold someone accountable for circumstances outside their control is not an act of justice. Nor is it an act of justice to assign a permenant harm as punishment for a temporary pain.

Since this has become a long and involved discussion (or threatens to) I won't bother to address any of the other side issues anymore. Problems with the eternity of a utopia or applying eternity to human traits are just a mirror image of this issue. Absolute values or the existence of the absolute are a tangent, that only relate because enternity is an absolute concept.

[inked]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

I'm afraid that is even less clear. What are you trying to say? Are you trying to argue that white southerners are less well off economically or politically in a non-segregated society?

If you elect to make societal standards the measure of morality, you have no appeal when a society goes wrong. Historically, however, the existence of absolute values and their use in opposing such abberations as humanity is prone to have been widely used.

Originally Posted by Blackheart

They are different systems. You can refer to them as sub-systems if you like, but that's quibbling. Baptist fundamentalists for example, have a different moral system than catholics, even if they are both based on christian traditions.

But that's still beside the point, if you are engaged in ranking different values, you are engaging in relativism.

No. If you engage your brother or sister in the absolute moral system, you are pointing out to them where their emphases are incongruent with the system acknowledged by all. If they have a different morality, you have no basis to engage them for relativism would say that all systems are equal and no one can judge another. That is patently false on the face of history. If someone takes your seat at the theatre, you oppose them on the ground of common morality: "Excuse me, that's my seat." If they do not acknowledge your 'ownership' of the seat, you appeal to the idea of "fairness" - "But I paid for that seat. Here's my ticket." If they continue to refuse your claim, you get the usher to enforce the moral dictum of fairness. Of course, if the seat-occupier is armed and dangerous, or bigger than you, you might ignore their immorality ("you shall not steal" has been violated). But I'll bet you won't continue complaining that "it's not fair". No absolute morality, no violation, no foul.

Originally Posted by Blackheart

I think I already said it. "humans are unable to completely subsume their individuality into sytems that fail to allow for it." Did I fail to state it clearly enough? What do you say about the fact that all the humans you point out then went on to create NEW systems of moral conduct? Ones that were, perhaps, able to tolerate individuality better.

How do you decide better, BH? To what are you appealing that I should acknowledge better? IF the appeal is to better 'toleration of individuality' was Hitler or Stalin the more realized individual? Idi Amin or Mengele? Buddha or St. Theresa?

Originally Posted by Blackheart

And yes, I would say that it's not humans that fail, it is the society they exist within. Asking which came first, humans or society is like asking whether chickens or eggs came first. It is meaningless noise. Humans do not exist outside the bounds of society, unless you are going to somehow clone then and drop them off as an infant in the wilderness and expect them to survie...

IF you do not have humans in relationship, you do not have society, BH. A person alone is not a society. Two persons is a dyad, a minimalist society, perhaps. It is only with three or more that the issues of social relations contain the necessary complexity to allow for groupings of majority rule. And, an infant in a dyad is just such a complexity simply by need, and not nearly as competent to disrupt as another adult. The complexity increases to the power of the number of individuals. That's why they develop rules to govern relations. Law, for example, to govern contracts, marriage, divorce, etc, is merely a societal outworking of the moral principles and differs between societies in particular applications. Even international law recognizes specific moral values between nations. IT's not a chicken or an egg scenario, BH. The egg doesn't relate.



[QUOTE=Blackheart]All you have done is provide a list of atrocities, social problems, and individuals who were considered evil. No where have you pointed out what makes these individuals or problems sinful. You just assume that they are, because you are assuming the existence of sin. You cannot provide a list of examples and point to them as empirical evidence for a class or category which you cannot define empirically.{/quote]

I'll try to remember this when someone accuses me of being immoral for my opposition to gay 'marriage', adultery, drunkeness. Think they'll by that I'm not sinning against the zeitgeist by identifying sin but merely listing examples of atrocities, social problems, or individuals. Nope! They're going to immediately appeal to their conception of "justice, fairness, tolerance, inclusivity" or whatever brand name they label their concept of morality to oppose me. IT will be an appeal to an absolute standard, however, and one they hope I share so as to allow an argument to re-prioritization.

[QUOTE=Blackheart} You CAN however use them as correlational items. But that is different topic, since my original objection was to the word empirical. You haven't even tried to point out why these things are considered evil, nor have you considered if there were any mitigating factors due to necessity.[/quote]

Necessity is a mutha, eh? It justifies all behaviours? So any violation of necessity would be empirical evidence for what? I don't need to point out why these things are considered evil, BH, because you and everyone else knows they are when they happen to you or your family or your tribe or your nation. It's only in the cozy comfort of your monitor's glow that you think otherwise.

Originally Posted by Blackheart

You should be careful in using that quote. There are competing theories that account for the data just as well, if not better... Models that actually can be based empirically, since they describe set conditions and are based on other underlying theories of social interaction.

The objection was not to the existence of sin, but to the idea that you can EMPIRICALLY verify the existence of a philosopical or spiritual concept.

It would be of little purpose to deny the existence of a concept like sin in a discussion about Dant'es inferno, now wouldn't it?

Rather. That'll be two points and no rim!

Originally Posted by Blackheart

The concept of ORIGINAL sin however, is a distinction between two philosophical constructs. The idea that all humans are tainted from birth is objectionable to me, because it bases the flaw on something humans have no control over, the past. To hold someone accountable for something they have no control over is not an act of justice.

The closest concept to it which I will concede to, is the idea that if humans exist within a flawed society, then they are rapidly converted to the "sins" of the society they exist within.



Yes that is what I meant. Which means that, as much as we would like to think that there is an absolute moral value out there, all systems in their practical application at least, realize the neccesity of some relativism.

Great! Take it to the philosophy thread. But this is the Dante thread and Dante was a Christian. His definitions apply.

Originally Posted by Blackheart

Survival. Mid-20c United states...

Yes new values do arrive. And they are integrated into, and on top of, old traditions. New values do arise, because the world is ever changing. They get related back to earlier traditions, because traditions are useful for certain things, one of them being a comparison of the relative value of "values"...



I must point out that whether or not eternity is predicated on the existence of humanity has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that eternity is a postulated condition of a christian afterlife. You can say it is predicated on the existence of god, but it makes absolutely no practical difference for the purpose of the discussion.



Your assumption is off the mark. At no point did I suggest that individuals should not suffer the consequences of their actions. What I did point out, is that eternal suffering is of no purpose, allows no growth or change, and is in fact a form of harm, not pain. Harm being permanant damage.

Since you are postulating the existence of a divine justice, one would assume that it would take some concept of the idea of a fair punishment. Or even rehabilitation. Even the worst individual that has ever existed, lets take your example of Ted Bundy, given the postulated existence of eternity, the worst things that he ever did will be temporary. Therefore, no matter what punishment is chosen, to make it eternal makes it unjust, because of the disproportionate effect.



Which actually has nothing to do with what I am pointing out. I think I pointed out before that IT DOES NOT MATTER WHERE the origin of the sin was. So what if all of humanity is irredeemable and burdened with sin, even "original sin".

WHAT does that have to do with the idea that eternal punishment even roughly approximates justice?




Oddly enough, if you read back, you'll note that I am arguing against the existence of an absolute moral value...
And stated quite firmly that the imposition of an absolute moral standard does MORE harm than good... which is another way of saying that it does more evil than good.

So no I don't really think that all behaviors are equal, since that was my original point... Obviously NEITHER did Dante, since he postulated several different layers of hell... though frankly one is hard put to choose any of them as less harsh, since they are all eternal...

I seriously think you are missing the entire point of the original discussion, which was whether or not avoiding sin was always a good thing. Which is how we got onto the discussion of necessity. If it is necesary, then it is unavoidable. If it is unavoidable and necessary, then avoiding it completely may actually NOT be a "good" thing.

Hence the exhortation to "moderation in all things"

Which was countered by resorting to a utopian ideal. Much of the following discussion was related to the problems of perfection and remaining human within the framework of a utopian ideal. In other words a continuing discussion of the problems of imposing the absolute upon humanity which exists within an imperfect world.

But the discussion seems to have moved away from the original point. I have tried to point it back towards the original thread, that being a discussion of the philosophical merits, or lack thereof, of Dante's idea of hell...

To restate some of the salient points of the side discussion:

I pointed out that pain was a necessary precursor to growth and learning.

Pain is not neccesarily evil.

Pain is not equivilant to harm, pain being a temporary phenomenon, whereas harm is "permanant" and stifles growth.

You can roughly substitute the terms growth for good, and harm for evil...

Those are all semantic distinctions. The meat of the matter is that eternal punishment would seem more of a harm than a growth factor. In other words, more of an evil than a good.

People are objecting that it's not god's fault that they are punished eternally, it's the fault of humanity, because humanity has at it's core original sin, or some other flaw.

To which I have been pointing out, bullshit, humanity did not design this system under it's postulated rules. To hold someone accountable for circumstances outside their control is not an act of justice. Nor is it an act of justice to assign a permenant harm as punishment for a temporary pain.

Since this has become a long and involved discussion (or threatens to) I won't bother to address any of the other side issues anymore. Problems with the eternity of a utopia or applying eternity to human traits are just a mirror image of this issue. Absolute values or the existence of the absolute are a tangent, that only relate because enternity is an absolute concept.

Pardon me if I know Dante would disagree with a great deal of this, but I'm out of time for now. Perhaps later.

[Lotesse]

* balh, blah, blah, wordy, wordy, jibber-jabber-blah blah bl - *oh, what? Sorry, was dozing off there for a second. Was - was inked saying something? Hmmph, must've dozed off when his post came on...

I love this what Blackheart says here; it is so quoteworthy that it goes in my own private journal of collectible sayings & thoughts:


" To hold someone accountable for circumstances outside their control is not an act of justice. Nor is it an act of justice to assign a permenant harm as punishment for a temporary pain. "

[Rían]

wow - I just looked in on this thread, and I must say I hope no one ever accuses me of making long posts again, because I'll just point them to this thread

*gets out Dante*

Hi Blackheart! How have you been?

And congrats on going over 5k, Lotesse!

[Rían]

I just took the test and ended up in Purgatory, but scored high in level 3 and moderate in levels 5, 7, and 8. Low to very low in the rest. But some of those questions were worded poorly and very hard to answer.

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by Hasty Ent

As others have already stated, I don't see them as being mutually exclusive. You can enjoy sex and live a pure and virtuous life in my world. Of course, I probably define "pure" and "virtuous" differently than some people might.

This is why I should actually bother reading posts before spouting off my VERY. IMPORTANT. OPINIONS. shuddap spock. They are important. Anyway, I guess I can see the point of enjoying sex, and still maintaining a virtuous life... But it's all bollocks right? End of the day, humans are as self-serving as they'll ever be, unless it somehow benefits them to work within a group dynamic, and even then it's so they will get warm 'n fuzzies from helping out...

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Do you think our world is better off because we had Hitler?

You think we would have had the technical and social advances that we have today without Hitler, and WWII? Nothing like a war to push forward technology and social issues.