Originally Posted by Big Al
But, Big Al, you don't seem to get it. If we accept Jesus only as a moral teacher and not as God, how will all the churches take our money?
But, Big Al, you don't seem to get it. If we accept Jesus only as a moral teacher and not as God, how will all the churches take our money?
...As a moth mistakes a bulb
for the moon, and goes to hell...
-Tom Waits-
Let them steal it honestly by robbing me at gunpoint.
Hell is other people.
~Jean-Paul Sartre, "No Exit"
We seem to be at cross-purposes here. I'm not denying the brilliance of Jesus' moral teaching. I'm suggesting that to say that that is all he is, is flat-out absurd. Jesus accepted worship, performed miracles and claimed to be God. Anybody who says that sincerely is either crazy, deluded, or the Son of God. That's the point. People who wish to see Jesus as nothing more than an equivalent to Socrates or Buddha miss the point. Any other moral teacher who claimed such things would be totally discredited.
The Heidegger example is clever, but what you're talking about there is not the same. Heidegger's moral confusion was between different philosophical ideas - with Jesus the question comes down to his sanity. That's a little different.
Morality cannot come from a flawed and unstable (re: insane) base.
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
They ask for it. You're not required to give it. If you say "no" the church will be happy to let you keep your money. You might wish to choose your verbs more carefully so that they reflect reality rather than your version of reality.
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
That’s a good one!!! You choose to forget that the established religions take most of our money through many state-established practices that neither I nor you can avoid, when they don’t take it directly from the state budget itself (the taxes of all of us). The money they (physically) ask from the faithful outside the church are peanuts...
But I suppose this a detail that will not affect your version of reality...
...As a moth mistakes a bulb
for the moon, and goes to hell...
-Tom Waits-
Firstly, Redzeppelin, cool name.
Secondly, even not as a Christian, I can say that Jesus had many worth-while teachings, and seems a man worth much reverence. I agree with the impossibility of comparing him with Buddha, Mohammed, Krishna, Lao-Tzu, Antone Szandor LaVey, or Confucius, but I refuse to categorize the others as mere others; this seems a lot like comparing teachers at a high school, claiming that the math teacher measures as such a better one than the physical education teacher, when, in fact, their subjects seem entirely different. I would call it impossible to compare religious leaders, labeling it as nothing more than an opinion.
Miracles . . . eh, perhaps I have 'tainted' my mind far too greatly with science, but I would consider Jesus' miracles no more superior than Aesculapius' performances in ancient Greece, centuries before Jesus. True, they call him the god of medicine, and Hippocrates has some worthy mentions, too, but I cannot believe everything written in ancient Greek texts, nor everything written in The Bible - it seems more a matter of faith to consider such miracles, than to call them exaggerations, faults in translation, or fiction.
Prove this assertion and I will accept your argument.
Hell is other people.
~Jean-Paul Sartre, "No Exit"
economics is the science of morality in the market place. Nash was a schizo.Basic (Micro-Economics) Definition:
A Nash Equilibrium is a set of mixed strategies for finite, non-cooperative games between two or more players whereby no player can improve his or her payoff by changing their strategy. Each player's strategy is an 'optimal' response (cf. optimality) based on the anticipated rational strategy of the other player(s) in the game.
Last edited by billyjack; 02-12-2009 at 11:15 AM.
Examples, please. It's one thing to bring out a charge, quite another to provide evidence.
Provide some specific examples and we'll see.
Morality deals with "ought" and "should" - it is the system by where we judge what is good/bad, right/wrong. Reason and will are required to make moral judgments - hence that reality that animals cannot be considered moral beings. Insanity cannot "birth" moral truth, except by accident, because insanity is a disordered state of mind. Morality cannot come from disorder: it must come from an ordered mind (logical, reasonable) that can comprehend what is and what should be. To say that a crazy person can be a source of truth is nonsensical in and of itself. Truth requires a stable base - it cannot come out of disorder. Truth attempts to establish what is - and a mind that cannot process or differentiate what is from what the person thinks is cannot produce moral teaching.
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
In more than two-thirds of the countries of the world, religion has not yet been separated from the State, with the obvious same-budget consequences.
I hope you are lucky enough to live in one of the others...
...As a moth mistakes a bulb
for the moon, and goes to hell...
-Tom Waits-
Specifics please. This is less vague than before, but not very helpful.
Besides - I do not speak for all religions - I speak for Christianity - so let's limit our examples to those I speak in defense of.
I'll be waiting.
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
Agreed.
Moral judgments do not always require reason; in fact I would assert that in most cases, a person's moral code is instilled in him by parents, peers and other social influences, and he often accepts it without any reasoning involved.Reason and will are required to make moral judgments - hence that reality that animals cannot be considered moral beings.
You treat "insanity" as a static thing which affects all people in the same way. Mental illness varies drastically in its severity and how it affects individuals. John Nash is schizophrenic; he is legally insane. However, his mind is "ordered" enough to have created some of the most brilliant economic theories of the 20th century.Insanity cannot "birth" moral truth, except by accident, because insanity is a disordered state of mind.
If morality cannot come from an "unstable mind," as you put it, then insane people are not capable of any kind of moral judgment. In other words, you are effectively asserting that no mentally ill person who has ever lived has possessed any ideas of right and wrong. This is faulty reasoning for several reasons, but I think the main problem is that it assumes that every type of insanity affects a person's ability to tell right from wrong, and in fact that is not the case. A person may have delusions, but that doesn't mean he is incapable of viewing certain acts as "good" and certain acts as "bad."Morality cannot come from disorder: it must come from an ordered mind (logical, reasonable) that can comprehend what is and what should be.
I'd like to know your definition of "crazy." As I mentioned before, John Nash was a schizophrenic, had delusions, saw people that did not exist, thought he talked to aliens and believed he was part of a mass government conspiracy. He is also one of the most brilliant mathematical thinkers of our time, a clear case of logic and reasoning arising from an "unstable mind."To say that a crazy person can be a source of truth is nonsensical in and of itself.
There is no proof for this assertion.Truth requires a stable base - it cannot come out of disorder.
There are those who would say that a theistic worldview is a delusion. To those people you would not be able to differentiate between "what is" and "what you believe to be," and thus you would be incapable of moral judgment. How can you be so quick to dismiss somebody else's reality when there are those who would quickly dismiss your own? After all, is there anything "real" outside our perception of reality?Truth attempts to establish what is - and a mind that cannot process or differentiate what is from what the person thinks is cannot produce moral teaching.
Hell is other people.
~Jean-Paul Sartre, "No Exit"
But this is beginning to look like a long, drawn-out argument. Here is my challenge to you: prove that in every single instance of mental illness or schizophrenia, a person loses all reasoning to the point where he is completely incapable of telling right from wrong. Also, perhaps you could explain to me how the mathematical theories of the schizophrenic John Nash differ from the moral teachings of the "delusional" Jesus Christ? Or should we throw out all of Nash's ideas because he is a "lunatic" and is thus incapable of reasoning?
Last edited by Big Al; 02-14-2009 at 05:27 PM. Reason: I saw a rogue question mark which should have been a period
Hell is other people.
~Jean-Paul Sartre, "No Exit"
Oh, so you only speak for Christianity? There are plenty of countries where Christianity is the official religion, un-separated from the State. But, we both know that if you were born in, say, Saudi Arabia or Morocco, you would be a Muslim and your talk about gospel and saviours would be a little bit different. What does this tell you?
...As a moth mistakes a bulb
for the moon, and goes to hell...
-Tom Waits-
Born in a country where it is heavily religious in one specific religion doesnt promise a person born there will accept that religion. Its all about personal faith whether they are willing to open their spirit to the religion.
I know a lot of people that were raised by non religious families, but very devoted and spiritual Christians, discovering God during their lives. Peoples' backgrounds where they originate from may have an impact to their sense of faith in religion, but it is mostly their own will and desire to accept.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote