Orthodox violation of human rights

[Eagleheart]

Let me explain...When I forcefully /family obligation will do too/ attended an orthodox ritual today and was "initiated" in the divine truths, I had to hear 9/ +-1/times: "Forgive us God/this was "sung" more than 9 times however/ the undecent ones" ; "Forgive us, the depraved ones, the corrupt ones " and so on, some questions were evoked in my mind/ apart from the opposition to be incriminated so "in the nature of things"/...they are the following:

Doesn't modern religion surprisingly resemble Middle ages "flogging"/ or should I say just a strong devotion"/ ...and aren't its rituals degrading the human further with the purpose of, I don't know, controlling him? What justification is there for this degrading? Isn't orthodox religion"s opposition to heathen's idolatry largely inconsisitent with its own emloyment of "gaudy" holy symbols...And where is the place of the orthodox tradition in natural human rights/ particularly the right of happiness/ I was considerably unhappy to be called "undecent, corrupt and depraved" prior to any trial


I would be glad if you share your thoughts

[Ancestor]

I am a Spiritualist and one reason I am so was that I got tired of a preacher only talking about the sins and not mentioning about the good that people do in this world. It made me feel like everything was bad and that nothing good was done. I decided to believe that humans do error but they also do something wonderful for others. But yet I have seen people whom are happy with orthodox religion. I personally believe a faith should make a person happy and not like a bad person.

[Whifflingpin]

"The bad news is that we're all sinners.

The good news is that we're all saved."

That's the Christian doctrine in two sentences (although, a great number don't believe we're all saved - or rather they believe 'We' are saved but 'You' may not be.)

The point is, that unless you start from the premiss that we are guilty, there is no need for God's forgiveness. The reason for stressing the sinfulness of Man is that most people don't feel all that sinful, and the purpose of showing people how sinful they are is to show the redemptive power of Christ as the greatest gift that God could make.

If you'll forgive the cliche, "Don't shoot the messenger!"

...

(Not that I am a Christian, but the logic of it is simple enough.)

...

[Ancestor]

I do not know one single person who has not made a mistake or two in their life that did not require forgiveness. I believe we all start out innocent and end up guilty of something or another.

[Eagleheart]

Aham, only that "logic" is often no medication...moreover I have seen a large number of confused "logical" creatures...Medieval Scholasticists were remarkably logical /this does not make them less vicious /though

I did not know sinfulness was serving the purpose of manifesting God's greatness /we are talking about methods I guess/- I feel much more educated now

[Whifflingpin]

"I did not know sinfulness was serving the purpose of manifesting God's greatness"

That is not, of course, what I said, although sinfulness, like anything else, can serve to show the greatness of God.

But consider: Anger is generally sinful, cynicism is a sin, excessive and unconsidered judgementalism is sinful, twisting the words of others to make a cheap point for yourself counts as a sin, sarcasm is sinful, and blaming others rather than facing one's own shortcomings is a sin.

Now if (and it is truly "if" - only you can make the judgement) you can squeeze that much sin into two lines of a post, how much sin is that in your whole life, and in your attitudes to your fellows? Do you deny the sinfulness or enjoy or self-justify it, or do you regret it and want an alternative? To be a Christian is to face the sin first, and then to thank God because sin is only the first word, not the last.


"I do not know one single person who has not made a mistake or two in their life that did not require forgiveness. I believe we all start out innocent and end up guilty of something or another."

It is not a question of "a mistake or two." Christians believe that the nature of man is steeped in sin and that even in good deeds there is always an element of sinfulness. And, on balance, how much good do humans do? If the balance were towards good rather than evil, we would have a heaven on Earth by now, by our own efforts.
But again, Christians do not believe that we "end up guilty of something or other." They believe that we end up forgiven for our deep and otherwise overwhelming sinfulness.

.

[cuppajoe_9]

And, on balance, how much good do humans do?

On balance, all the good that is done is done by humans.

[Whifflingpin]

"On balance, all the good that is done is done by humans."

True only if there are no spiritual powers of any other kind, and hence not really relevant to a discussion on why Christians lay such stress on sin.

If it were true, then humans do all the evil that there is as well. Balancing the good against the evil, as I said earlier, if the balance were in favour of the good then we would, by now, have a heaven on Earth by our own efforts.

.

[Eagleheart]

Lets see, I should thank God when I am no longer sarcastic, angry or rational and when I am humble and "suitable"....Is there anything in me I can say is my own personal achievement? - perhaps sinning

Maybe the religious scholars are holding that we have the free will to sin, but if we overcome our "corruptness" we should thank God for it

Well I am making progress with the "logic"

[ShoutGrace]

I decided to believe that humans do error but they also do something wonderful for others.



Which do humans do more - err, kill, lie, cheat, steal, hate, oppress – or “wonderful” things?


Why?


This ties in, I believe, with what Whifflingpin said here:




And, on balance, how much good do humans do? If the balance were towards good rather than evil, we would have a heaven on Earth by now, by our own efforts.



Humans are, for the most part, ambitious, uncaring, self fulfilling creatures.




I personally believe a faith should make a person happy and not like a bad person.



I think that a faith should relate to its adherent the truth. Religion isn’t there to make you feel better, or make you happy. It’s there to answer the fundamental questions humans care about.


If you want something to make you happy, there are better things than religion.


I’d rather have the truth than a pep talk (and this isn’t to say that the truth may not make you happy – indeed it should no matter what it is – what is unacceptable to me is potentially sacrificing the truth of the matter for happy feelings).




And where is the place of the orthodox tradition in natural human rights



Where are natural human rights apart from religion? If there is no God, you are an animal, and you’re claim on your “rights” is subjective preference. People act as if humans have natural rights for a number of different reasons, as far as I can tell, and one is utilitarian (cuppajoe_9 said something similar in the “objective moral values” thread).




I was considerably unhappy to be called "undecent, corrupt and depraved" prior to any trial


You can be unhappy, thats your right. But if what you are looking for is to be made to feel all warm and happy inside, why have anything to do with religion?

What if those three adjectives are correct? (and I'm not saying they are.) Is it worth it for you to contemplate that, despite the "sad" feelings that may arise when doing so?



Lets see, I should thank God when I am no longer sarcastic, angry or rational and when I am humble and "suitable"


Ah, no. Where did you take these adjectives from? Whifflingpin?

[rufioag]

I believe we have free will to do both "good" and "evil" but the difference in what should be considered good and evil should be defined as the motivation behind the event which is considered good. If i donate a 1000 dollars to charity, you would say, this is a good thing. But, if I care nothing for the children and do it only for recognition and personal gains, is this still good? Well yes and no. The event helps the charity but personally, it is of no worth and is not a good thing. On the other hand, if one does the same act seflessly, knowing that through the donation it glorifies God, then yes this is to be considered something good. Now im not saying that only Christians do things selflessly but the objective of a Christian in all things should be to glorify God.

[Whifflingpin]

My last word in this thread, since Shoutgrace makes a much better Christian than I do -

Eagleheart: "Lets see, I should thank God when I am no longer sarcastic, angry or rational and when I am humble and "suitable"...."

No, Eagleheart. Were you a Christian you would thank God that even if you were sarcastic, angry, irrational, proud and/or unsuitable, you would still benefit from His grace and love.

.

[Virgil]

I’d rather have the truth than a pep talk

Good discussion here. I don't feel the need to comment on anything but the Shoutgrace quote here. Sometmes one needs a good pep talk.:lol:

[Ancestor]

I think that a faith should relate to its adherent the truth. Religion isn’t there to make you feel better, or make you happy. It’s there to answer the fundamental questions humans care about.
Doesn't finding truth make you happy?

[kilted exile]

Doesn't finding truth make you happy?

That depends on the truth

[Eagleheart]

An animal Shoutgrace, you are distinguishing humans from animals on religious grounds...I have seen a lot of idolatry, worshipping and obsequiou

[cuppajoe_9]

Humans are, for the most part, ambitious, uncaring, self fulfilling creatures.I think we deserve a bit more credit than that, friend. Many people do not succede in acting morally, it's true, but I think almost all people try.


People act as if humans have natural rights for a number of different reasons, as far as I can tell, and one is utilitarian (cuppajoe_9 said something similar in the “objective moral values” thread). My position on natural rights is actually a bit different. As far as I can see, people by default have the 'right' to do whatever they have the abilitiy to do, limited only by the circumstances of their life and whatever they chose to limit themselves to. The 'do unto others' principle is a common self-imposed limitation followed with varying degrees of strictness but it is basically a pragmatic idea.


What if those three adjectives are correct? (and I'm not saying they are.) Is it worth it for you to contemplate that, despite the "sad" feelings that may arise when doing so?I don't think it matters if they are correct, the problem as I see it is that the non-religious wish to be seen as innocent until proven guilty whereas the original sin doctrine sees us as guilty until proven saints.

[Eagleheart]

obsequiousness in nature, and without any bible, we are animals...This is strategically completed...one good reason for not questioning the presence of God, I see...
In fact I was in no intention to cast blame/ it is humiliating for me if not for any other benevolent reason/...My aim was only opposition to the"natural" incrimination...and the contradictions in the orthodox tradition...If religion is there to answer fundemental questions, then those expecting answers should be concerned with contradictions...Now preoccupation with who should answer those questions and not what they are seems to be prevalent...
I am again unhappy

[Ancestor]

That depends on the truth

Quite true there but then again how can we truly know that any truth is a 100% true?

[Virgil]

To quote a famous movie, "You can't handle the truth." :D

Only kidding. Most of us can.

[cuppajoe_9]

Quite true there but then again how can we truly know that any truth is a 100% true?

We can't. Ask Descartes. Better yet, ask Descartes' critics.

[ShoutGrace]

Good discussion here. I don't feel the need to comment on anything but the Shoutgrace quote here. Sometmes one needs a good pep talk.:lol:


Sure they do. But not at the expense of facing reality honestly. ;)


Doesn't finding truth make you happy?


It does me. Here's what I wrote:



(and this isn’t to say that the truth may not make you happy – indeed it should no matter what it is – what is unacceptable to me is potentially sacrificing the truth of the matter for happy feelings).





obsequiousness in nature, and without any bible, we are animals...


Who mentioned the Bible? I didn't.



This is strategically completed...one good reason for not questioning the presence of God, I see...


What does "stategically completed" mean?



...and the contradictions in the orthodox tradition...


Such as?



If religion is there to answer fundemental questions, then those expecting answers should be concerned with contradictions...


Why?




Now preoccupation with who should answer those questions and not what they are seems to be prevalent...


What are the questions you are wanting answered?



I am again unhappy


I'm sorry for that. Maybe sometimes you have to think about tough things in order to enjoy/understand life more.



I think we deserve a bit more credit than that, friend. Many people do not succede in acting morally, it's true, but I think almost all people try.


I'm just saying, looking at the course of human history from a moral standpoint, I'm not too impressed with where we've gotten, all things considered. As Whifflingpin said, if humans, on balance, had a greater propensity to do good . . .

I'm not declaiming total depravity, but I am no meliorist.



My position on natural rights is actually a bit different. As far as I can see, people by default have the 'right' to do whatever they have the abilitiy to do, limited only by the circumstances of their life and whatever they chose to limit themselves to.


Like the law? Society?


Why is "right" in quotes, above? People can generally do whatever they want with their lives, or minds (of course not taking into account things like chains, etc), is that a "right"?


Seems more like an ability (word you used), not a right (which is a "just claim"). Do humans have a natural "claim" on rights like life, safety, liberty, pursuit of . . . . etc?



I don't think it matters if they are correct, the problem as I see it is that the non-religious wish to be seen as innocent until proven guilty whereas the original sin doctrine sees us as guilty until proven saints.


Which is why it is so wonderful that Eagleheart can tell those people to "Shove off, I don't buy it." (of course depending on what society/time period they're living in :D).

But first, most would consider it wise for any person to honestly appraise the world around them before rejecting and accepting views from others. I'm not saying the state of the world makes the condition of original sin clear (!).

If you don't think you are guilty of anything than that's that.



Quite true there but then again how can we truly know that any truth is a 100% true?


You can't. But ideally, would you rather be comforted during your time on earth or allowed to discover the truth about your existence?

What I mean, Ancestor, is that the sole merit of religion does not lie in it's ability to make people happy. That is not it's purpose, nor was it ever. Incidentally, it usually does, because those who partake of religion generally believe that it has the element of truth to it (and this is fulfilling).

[Ancestor]

I did not mean to imply that religion should be the soul happiness. I meant to say that if your are not happy with the teaching of that religion how can you benefit from it. Sorry, I did not make myself clear and still may not be doing so now. My life has been a bit turned upside down lately which has caused me to reflect on my faith and on my whole self actually. I have seen people whom are so miserable with their faith not grow from that faith. Again sorry that I did not state myself better.

[cuppajoe_9]

I'm just saying, looking at the course of human history from a moral standpoint, I'm not too impressed with where we've gotten, all things considered. As Whifflingpin said, if humans, on balance, had a greater propensity to do good . . .All things considered? You are on a website which contains some of the greatest works of literature we have produced, hundreds of them. We have entire classes of people dedicated to making life for others (no, not politicians, doctors, medical researchers, social workers). We can manipulate electrons in such a way so as to instantly beam complex moral problems to people who live half way around the world. Sure, we've dug ourselves into kind of a hole, societally, and we still have this odd custom of organizing into large armed groups to kill people we've never met, and yes, we are all guilty of something but, and this is, as far as we can tell, unique in the entire universe, we understand that we are guilty and we make at least some sort of effort to stop it. All things considered, Shout, I think we've done pretty good for ourselves, especially considering that only 100,000 years ago we were all sitting around in caves hoping not to get eaten by giant hyenas. What would it take to impress you?


Which is why it is so wonderful that Eagleheart can tell those people to "Shove off, I don't buy it." (of course depending on what society/time period they're living in ).Yes, but you cannot do this if you are four years old and mind-numbingly gullible, and that, almost invariably, is when this happens. If you are presented with this sort of philosophy when you are older you can, of course, reject it, but if you've been steeped in it from the time that you were able to understand language, it becomes very difficult to get rid of the image of yourself as the kind of person who is so sinful that a man had to be tortured to death to attone for it. Can you tell I used to be a Catholic?


If you don't think you are guilty of anything than that's that.Oh, I am guilty of very many things, but I still think I'm entitled to the assumption that I'm innocent until it can be shown to me just what exactly I am guilty of.

Moving on to natural rights:


Like the law? Society? Yeah, that sort of thing. Society more than law, as people generally only follow the laws which appeal to them personally (or is that just me?). I am convinced that society is a much more powerful moral motivator than legislation, mostly by studying sociology. The lowest murder rate in the world belongs to a group of people who have no formal written laws at all. (Incidentally, so does the highest.)


Why is "right" in quotes, above? People can generally do whatever they want with their lives, or minds (of course not taking into account things like chains, etc), is that a "right"?It's in quotes because I am not using it in the usual senses of legal or moral rights (because as you know I don't believe in objective morality, and I apparently don't believe in the law either). The point that I am trying to get across is that rights are not things that are given to you by God or the government, or whatever, you have infinite rights by default, and the government simply agrees not to take certain rights away. You have whatever rights you think you have, in other words. That way, whenever whatever you think your rights are infringe on whatever I think my rights are we can have a fight. And that's the history of politics.

[Eagleheart]

Shoutgrace: a definition of an answer: s.th that should at least address the question, an incongruity appears sometimes exactly when one shapes a response without any notice of the question: Example: "Why should humans flog themselves before God/ accept it broadly- verbal flogging/ without any definite"sin" on their part, but only for the sermon's sake.
A model answer: God is forgiving, but humans have to admit their sins first...Aham, it is only that I said a definite sin...Isn't it logical when one faces his sins to ask for forgiveness then and not have it in a "moral" ritual constantly "sung"....If you are not concerned with contradictions...and are ready to accept an answer/ regardless of its merits/...I do not see any place for discussion here...And I was talking about the fundemental questions you mentioned...I do not expect any answers from religion...I explained in one of my previous posts what I see as contradictions...

[ShoutGrace]

All things considered, Shout, I think we've done pretty good for ourselves, especially considering that only 100,000 years ago we were all sitting around in caves hoping not to get eaten by giant hyenas.



Oh, technologically we’ve done very well. I’m not arrogant enough to assert that we haven’t done enough on that front – I will never understand the complexity and genius of some of our accomplishments. Some humans are curious – they innovate, and explore. “Us now” cannot hardly be compared to “us however many years ago.”

I took that stance in the "Is mankind special . . . " thread.

We've also taken the time to innovate gas chambers, atomic weapons and more effective methods of torture.




What would it take to impress you?



“In the Darfur region of Sudan, a three-year conflict between rebel groups and the government has driven 2 million people into temporary camps—and more than 400,000 have been killed.”



Not having stuff like that anymore would impress me.



Every day, more than 16,000 children die from hunger-related causes--one child every five seconds. 852 million people across the world are hungry, up from 842 million a year ago.



The human race now has the resources and communicative abilities to literally end hunger. If we would work together* we could, as a race, bring an end to 99% of the suffering on this planet – coordinate the wealth (commu . . . ?), and thus providing food and medical care to every person, everywhere. This can't and won't happen, I know, but doesn't it take away from the impressiveness of human existence to know that we can't? We're too greedy and ambitious, self interested, whatever.


I look at American society. There are 18 yr old rap stars buying 5 million dollar mansions, driving around in a 1 million dollar ‘tricked out’ Lexus. Do they have the right? Of course. Didn’t they come up out of a tough situation themselves, perhaps neglected and wanting for food? Sure. Is it their obligation to use their 5 million dollars and buy food for 5 million people? No, nor can they – there aren’t processes in place that would allow them to do that very easily.


Even myself . . . I’m barely affording the tuition etc. of the school I’m going to full time, while working full time and making around 13 – 15 thousand dollars a year. 99.9% of the time I don’t give one thought to others’ sufferings – I’m too busy. That infuriates me.


I’m not trying to knock wealth, or the individual’s right to attain and manage it. But wouldn’t it be impressive if instead of 1 person owning a 15 bedroom mansion with a Starbucks installed inside, and having 12 upper class cars in the garage . . . wouldn’t it be impressive if some people got fed?


Why do we have things like Holocausts? And the Belgian conquest of the Congo? And the Trail of Tears? And the Darfur genocide? It would be impressive if we didn’t do stuff like that.


Granted, only 400,000 murdered in Darfur, out of 6 billion people, but I think the principle is more important than the ratio.




I am convinced that society is a much more powerful moral motivator than legislation, mostly by studying sociology.



Agree all the way on this one. Absolutely.




The lowest murder rate in the world belongs to a group of people who have no formal written laws at all. (Incidentally, so does the highest.)


Okay . . . just go ahead and tell me which ones they are. :D




The point that I am trying to get across is that rights are not things that are given to you by God or the government, or whatever, you have infinite rights by default, and the government simply agrees not to take certain rights away.



What is philosophically available to prevent the bigger guy next to you from taking away your rights and forcing you to do anything he wants?


Is it “wrong” for him to do so? Isn’t he exploring his self proclaimed rights?




You have whatever rights you think you have, in other words.



That doesn’t do much for me. Then your rights are mere preferences stored in your brain, products of your ruminations. How then is it wrong for someone to take them away?


It’s only wrong in your mind?




That way, whenever whatever you think your rights are infringe on whatever I think my rights are we can have a fight.



What if we both agree that mankind has been endowed “Certain, unalienable” rights by our Creator, and we ought not to infinge? I'm guessing we're not going to agree on that one. ;)

[cuppajoe_9]

The human race now has the resources and communicative abilities to literally end hunger. If we would work together* we could, as a race, bring an end to 99% of the suffering on this planet – coordinate the wealth (commu . . . ?), and thus providing food and medical care to every person, everywhere. This can't and won't happen, I know, but doesn't it take away from the impressiveness of human existence to know that we can't? We're too greedy and ambitious, self interested, whatever.I don't see this as a result of a defect on the part of individual humans, but rather a product of the societal hole we've dug ourselves into. The attitude of most North Americans is not "Stupid Africans had it coming", but rather sympathy and at least some sort of an effort to correct it, such as the Hunger Site that your signature links to. Granted, most of these efforts, the Hunger Site included, are not very useful in the long term, not while our governments are intentionally tarrifing those countries into the dirt to keep them poor, anyway. And yes, the rich are not helping out with this over much, but that is because the way you get rich is by being extremely greedy and egotistical. I am going to cut myself off before I go off on one of my usual rants, but the point is that the current screwed-upness of the world is not a product of the immorality of the average human being.


Okay . . . just go ahead and tell me which ones they are.:DCurse you for making me dig out my sociology notes. The lowest homicide rate in the world belogs to the !Kung Sun (the exclaimation mark stands for a clicking sound), a west-African indigenous tribe. They consider violence of any kind a violation of the social contract. In what limited contact they have had with the western world, we've absolutely appaled them. It's unbelievable to them that some western parents strike their children, for example. The highest homicide rate in the world is found among the Yąnomamö, a Brazilian tribe. They consider killing members of rival tribes the highest possible acchievement for a young man. Pre-school aged children are encouraged to beat one another up with clubs. It's pretty crazy. Note that my information is a few years old, but I got it from a Candian homicide expert by the name of Elliott Layton. Wiki informs me that the Yąnomamö have made some progress since then.


What if we both agree that mankind has been endowed “Certain, unalienable” rights by our Creator, and we ought not to infinge? I'm guessing we're not going to agree on that one. Of course we aren't, because we don't have a Creator;). That particular Creator has, in any case, endowed some pretty messed up unalienable rights over the years (the Divine Right of Kings springs to mind), and whenever governments agree that there are certain unalienable rights, they generally alienate every single one of them. This is certainly true in the US and Canada, except for freedom of thought, and I'm sure they're working on that one.

[ShoutGrace]

"Why should humans flog themselves before God/ accept it broadly- verbal flogging/ without any definite"sin" on their part, but only for the sermon's sake.


I am not of the opinion that any humans should “flog themselves” before God, anything or anyone else.


“Definite” sin? What do you mean by that?


The Christian does not repent because the pastor told them to – they repent because Jesus said that in order to “inherit” eternal life, one must be “born again” by the Holy Spirit. He and the rest of the New Testament explain that process. Jesus said that he didn’t “come into” the world to condemn it, but that it might be “saved” through him. This in and of itself indicates that mankind is in a state requiring “saving.”

The Bible as a whole teaches the depraved and unfit state of humankind. If you don’t agree, then you don’t agree.




Isn't it logical when one faces his sins to ask for forgiveness then and not have it in a "moral" ritual constantly "sung"



The Bible that I read doesn’t teach the need for the constant dwelling upon of sins – which is what I think you’re talking about here?

Or are you saying it is most sensible to ask for forgiveness rather than dwell on sin? If that's the case, then I agree completely.


Forgiveness is a onetime shot according to the Bible – Psalm 51 is the best possible example of total repentance. Rejoicing on the fact that you have been forgiven doesn’t seem unpalatable to me – does it to you?




If you are not concerned with contradictions...



Are you talking to me here? Where did I ever say this? I asked you specifically to bring to light the contradictions you are worried about. Please don’t condemn me for something that I haven’t said or intimated.




and are ready to accept an answer/ regardless of its merits/



Uh-oh, I see you already have.




I do not see any place for discussion here...



That seems clear to me. I’ve asked you a multitude of questions and all you’ve done is accuse me unfoundedly.




And I was talking about the fundemental questions you mentioned...



Just to clarify, what are the fundamental questions? How can you be sure we are talking about the same thing if we haven’t agreed on this point already?




I do not expect any answers from religion...



This is very clear as well. If you have your mind made up beforehand, then why are you even asking questions?




I explained in one of my previous posts what I see as contradictions...



Could you please point me to where that was?

[Ancestor]

How can we truly define sin? What you consider sinful someone else might not but I do know that asking for forgiveness helped me to move forward with my life. I forgave someone whom violated me and I did not do it for his sake but my own. When I ask forgiveness I know that I have wronged someone and I also ask for forgivenss of the Great Spirit (God). I do not follow the Bible but I feel that my faith helps me grow as a person and those whom do not believe in a higher is up them. That is our free will for which allows anything to be true or not. It is a fine line between the truth and a lie but the bottom line is for us to explore for the answers of life.

[Eagleheart]

Your last question Shoutgrace - third line /second paragraph/start of the thread...Furthermore...contradiction is to me every "repent or..."/ I usually do not praise the continuation/... asking for forgiveness is supposed to be creditable because of the realization of sins not any susceptibility before the "authoritative influences"/- I am strictly refering to the contents of the orthodox hymns I have had the educational opportunity to listen to.../discussing the Bible is already a lost cause/...what I have mentioned i have encountered often enough to be suspicious...

And entering a discussion without any convictions on one's part is not unbiasness,but at least some development from the period when wisdom is only a grown-up category . Not expecting anything from religion for myself does not make me insensitive to any attempts for understanding of other's beliefs/ but they should at least be introduced sanely-here I do not deny you the merits in this/...And I do not proclaim myself to be entirely successful...
Here I am on the defensive...not seeing myself as a Christian does not make me biased.../in case of any misunderstanding Again/

[ShoutGrace]

Eagleheart,

I guess I just don't understand enough about your situation or what was said to you, and therefore my comments might be totally off the mark. Whifflingpin's words concerning Christian doctrine ring correct with me, and I've made my position on what I thought you were talking about, concerning sin, clear. I hope relevant ideas have brought up here and that you have a little better idea about the topic than you did before.

[ennison]

As we have not made the mould that forms us we do not have any choice about the basics of our nature. And if the mould is flawed then everything that comes out of it is flawed.The doctrine of the Fall attemts to explain the flaw.
On the question of rights it seems to me we have those that others let us have. Our lives are temporary so we have nothing physically here that cannot be taken from us. Eventually all that we own, possess, desire etc will be taken from us. We can yodel about our rights as much as we like but they are largely irrelevant in the greater scheme of things. It is natural for us to want them but I cannot see that we ever really have them.
On the question of accepting revealed truth I'd say those of us who have had it shown to us can accept it or deny it. Not everything about the truth will make us happy. A lot of it can be very unsatisfying for our human impulses. The question about what we take credit for ourselves is very interesting and I cant answer it. The ability to exercise our free will is an ability we take for granted. Whether in a predestined universe (as I believe) there is in fact such a thing as free will at all seems not to matter a lot for we daily act as if we are making choices and we believe that other people are making choices too. While I believe that people should be allowed to go to Hell in their own wheelbarrow do I also believe that it is our own choice that takes us to heaven. Mmh not sure. Do I believe that we can actually resist what is laid before us. Sometimes I think not. Sometimes I think the opposite.
Should we expect the truth to make us happy. Perhaps but our human happiness is inextricably bound up with the here and now of our individual conditions, is bound up with our being human. So one can accept the truth but find only the minimum of consolation there for, say, a grief which is a hard fact of life and will tend to be more important than any abstract acceptance of this or that idea connected to a faith which is the evidence of things unseen.

[Guzmán]

I find absurd for anger, cynism and sarcasm to be considered sins, as was mentioned earlier on this thread. Do you think that without the feeling of anger and the impulse to act violently mankind would have survived this long? Its part of self preservation; to act violently and irrationally in a life or death circumstance. Dont you think the caveman needed that to survive?

You dont need to go as far as the caveman: a month ago a 17 year old kid and his 20 something brother pulled a gun on me to rob me 1.5 dollars, I never felt so angry in my life, is that sin? I was lucky they didnt find it apropriate to shoot me (they werent drugged enough to do so i guess) but what if they had tried? Maybe the impulse to act violently could have saved me in those circumstances.

You can of course give me the crap that if mankind werent sinful and blah blah blah those two kids wouldnt have acted that way and we would all live holding hands and smiling, but violence and anger are part of our nature, thankfully most of us have a rational component as well so as to be able to control that kind of stuff.

[ennison]

I find that we comfort ourselves rather a lot with the idea that we are rational and therefore this means our impulses, our natures are under control. But our reason is as flawed as any other part of us. It is a part of our nature. I am not advocating irrational behaviour as an acceptable alternative. I agree we don't need to go to the caveman. But that's because he is us. We tend to judge him by his dwelling and his beard. There are those who think we have evolved away from him. Well they are just wrong.

[Guzmán]

I find that we comfort ourselves rather a lot with the idea that we are rational and therefore this means our impulses, our natures are under control. But our reason is as flawed as any other part of us. It is a part of our nature. I am not advocating irrational behaviour as an acceptable alternative. I agree we don't need to go to the caveman. But that's because he is us. We tend to judge him by his dwelling and his beard. There are those who think we have evolved away from him. Well they are just wrong.

I dont think that we have evolved away from the caveman as much as we have developed education and responsability to develop ourselves, but I agree that his impulses still reide inside of us, but my point was, thats a good thing sometimes! Why does it have to be siful?

[Eagleheart]

There are those who think we have evolved away from him. Well they are just wrong
One of those who are wrong: If you provide me with satisfactory evidence of sense of social duty and altruism in a caveman, I think I may nominate you for a high contributor to humanity. You mentioned comfort: Are you sure that comfort doesn't stem from our confidence that a little irrationality here and there is only too natural to be opposed?

[ennison]

Well what evidence have I got that he was less than I am. None. A downmarket dwelling and lack of soap do not imply a lesser form of humanity. A bit smellier sure but I've never been one to accept that cleanliness is next to Godliness. I've no interest in accepting nominations no matter how temptingly phrased.

[Eagleheart]

Clever way not to answer my question, I have never argued in favour of any soaps/ there are some points which exclude discussion/...you have to admit...
Social duty and altruism-I think not distancing any of the mentioned from the caveman clearly deprives them of the recognition deserved...Your ability to distinguish cleanliness and godliness for example serves only my point. But I chose not to highlight any cognitive skills...intentionally...Consider my particular examples...If progress was measured by the services of hairdressers
and new outfits, I may have been more humble indeed

[ennison]

Well let's see. I guess I could point to Social duty and altruism being part of , say, modern American society by pointing to American overseas aid and the American defence of Western European Democracy against tyranny. I guess I could point to the way in which most societies have systems of social support, health, education etc. The caveman's society was simpler, smaller, more scattered. So I'd have to look at simpler societies that have survived into the present century. All of these show a sense of social duty and altruism among their members to at least the same level as any massive industrial society. Maybe the reason I don't answer your question is that I'm pretty sure that we don't have the same view on what constitutes 'altruism'. Modern complex societies have not progressed constantly towards more and more altruistic human beings. Some societies have peaked and then gone backwards. Now the individual caveman .... like the Individual American or Bulgarian is a different kettle of fish ...
Somehow I reckon this will not be satisfactory for you. I'm probably sounding like one who believes in the 'Noble Savage' but I don't anymore than I believe that people living in modern civilisations are by virtue of the era in which they live somehow more altruistic and better than their ancestors. So switching tack can I recommend two books. One is Golding's novel 'The Inheritors'. The second is Estaben Lucas Bridges book 'Uttermost Part of The Earth'. The latter is my favourite book. (I consult my Bible several times a week so I don't count it here) The title is a quotation from Luke in Acts - 'gu iomall na talmhainn'. I reckon you would enjoy both these books which would give you more to chew on mentally than I can do here.

[Eagleheart]

The caveman's society was simpler, smaller, more scattered. So I'd have to look at simpler societies that have survived into the present century How do modern simpler societies represent the caveman age? Simpleness is a characteristic of the organization, it does not illuminate the elements of the societal relationship...Rural people in Bulgaria live on almost tribal principles- but I would not relegate them to the caveman age only because they do not participate in the complicated structures of citizenship...
Modern complex societies have not progressed constantly towards more and more altruistic human beings
Not viewing your fellowmen as potential supper is s.th of a progress I think...but what I seriosly hold is that superiority is only to be claimed when social life is evident in its present form/however rare it happens to be/..that is- genuine concern for the wellbeing of others- We have no accounts of such sociability in the domain of the discussed "savage"'s undertakings...Are we talking about a benign, just and attentive savage, whose existence will be a mockery to my historical knowledge? No, we are not...So - do you need the exceptional figures' life of altruism to be a massive occurence in order to admit development...I do not proclaim the majority's altruistic propensities, but their presence even in only isolated examples is indicative of some centuries of progress
but I don't anymore than I believe that people living in modern civilisations are by virtue of the era in which they live somehow more altruistic and better than their ancestors Neither do I

[ennison]

Maybe we are not far apart on lots of things then Cridhe an Iolaire. They represent the caveman only in the adjectives that can be applied to his society -simpler, smaller etc. My belief is that in no way is the psychology or nature of the caveman substantially different from me or anyone I know.